Apparently, NHL president Gary Bettman is thinking about retirement. That day can’t come soon enough for many NHL fans. But before leaving, he will stubbornly continue to seek out new American markets—all in the name of more TV money—at the expense of quality of play, not to mention the Stanley Cup dreams for the majority of invested fans.
Bettman has spent more than three decades selling hockey to people who do not necessarily want it. His laughable devotion to the now-defunct, bush-league Phoenix franchise is undoubtedly the clearest example. Sadly, what has transpired over the summer makes one thing perfectly clear: He is not finished.
The NHL has formally begun examining Houston and Austin, Texas, as possible homes for its 33rd franchise. Houston billionaire Dan Friedkin and his family have been granted a six-month period to work with the league on a proposal, with the cost reportedly reaching $3.5 billion—approximately $2 billion for the expansion franchise and another $1.5 billion for a new arena. The new team could begin playing as early as the 2029–30 season.
And because nobody at NHL headquarters seems capable of stopping at an odd number, the league has also reportedly held preliminary discussions with groups interested in placing a 34th team in Atlanta or—get this—Phoenix.
The NHL seems more than willing to return to the desert after the Coyotes spent nearly three decades stumbling through ownership troubles, financial problems, arena disputes and general public indifference before the franchise was finally shipped to Utah in 2024. Only Gary Bettman could look at that wreckage and conclude that what Phoenix really needs is another NHL team.
FOLLOW THE TELEVISION MONEY
The NHL will insist that any expansion decision must involve suitable ownership, a strong market and an acceptable arena. All of that is true. But the timing tells the larger story:
The league’s American television agreements with ESPN and TNT Sports, worth approximately US$625 million annually, expire following the 2027–28 season. Before negotiating the next package, the NHL would dearly love to tell American broadcasters that another large U.S. market is about to join the league.
Houston is one of the largest television markets in the United States without an NHL team. Austin is smaller, but it is wealthy, rapidly growing and has only one major-league sports franchise. Adding either market would give Bettman another collection of American television households to place on the bargaining table. Whether many of those households actually want to watch hockey is apparently a problem for another day.
This is not necessarily a bad business strategy. Expansion fees provide the existing owners with an enormous immediate payday, while another major American market might increase the value of the next national television contract. But what is good for the owners’ bank accounts is not automatically good for the game.
WHERE WILL ALL THE PLAYERS COME FROM?
The NHL currently has 32 teams. Adding Houston or Austin would create another 23 active-roster jobs. Adding a 34th team would create 46. If the league eventually grows to 36 teams—as has often been speculated—it would require 92 more NHL players than it does today. Bettman will argue that the worldwide talent pool is deeper than ever. American development programs are producing more players of interest, and European countries continue to funnel more prospects to North America as well.
And yes, the Vegas Cheaters reached the Stanley Cup Final in its first season and won the Cup in its sixth. Seattle made the playoffs in its second season. But those results do not prove that expansion has no effect on quality. They prove that the NHL’s generous expansion-draft rules allowed the new teams to acquire legitimate players from established clubs.
The issue is not whether the NHL can find another 46 skaters capable of playing in the league at some level. It can. The issue is whether spreading the league’s elite players among 33, 34 or eventually 36 teams produces a better NHL. It does not. Expansion may add more players—but it will not add more elite players.
There’s a reason why the occasional best-on-best showdowns (Olympics, Four Nations Cup) are so riveting for most fans. When elite players combine with other elite players, the quality of play reaches a pace and skill level rarely seen in a typical NHL game.
Every expansion team weakens the concentration of elite talent. Third-pairing defencemen become second-pairing defencemen. Fourth-line forwards receive larger roles. Marginal goaltenders get more starts. Established teams lose useful players in expansion drafts, while every additional franchise competes for the same draft choices, free agents and international talent.
The difference may not be dramatic after one expansion. Keep adding teams, however, and eventually the world’s best hockey league becomes the world’s largest hockey league. Those are not the same thing.
STANLEY CUPS DROUGHTS
Just as important, expansion also makes the Stanley Cup increasingly difficult to win.
In a perfectly balanced 32-team league, each club would win the Cup once every 32 years. With 34 teams, the mathematical average becomes once every 34 years. At 36 teams, it becomes once every 36 years. That does not mean every team will patiently take its turn. Some organizations will win several championships while others wait half a century—or longer. Much, much longer. Over 60 seasons in a 34-team league, a team with an equal chance every year would still have approximately a one-in-six chance of never winning the Stanley Cup. Real NHL teams do not have equal chances, of course. Poor ownership, bad management, geography, taxation and simple misfortune can leave a franchise below average for decades.
The more teams Bettman adds, the more fan bases are asked to share the same single championship. There is still only one Stanley Cup, no matter how many expansion cheques the owners deposit. There will also be more competition just to reach the playoffs. Nothing says “growing the game” quite like asking fans to follow six months of hockey before telling most of them to go home.
WHY NOT CANADA?
Houston at least offers a large, previously untapped NHL market. Austin presents a more debatable but potentially interesting opportunity. Phoenix is something else entirely. The Coyotes arrived in Arizona in 1996. Over the next 28 years, the franchise changed owners repeatedly, went through bankruptcy, was temporarily operated by the NHL and struggled to find a permanent arena solution. During its final two seasons, the club played in a 5,000-seat university arena. Bettman defended the Arizona market almost to the bitter end. Now, barely two years after the Coyotes moved to Utah, Phoenix is reportedly back in the conversation. At some point, refusing to admit defeat stops looking like determination and starts looking like blatant stupidity.
Atlanta may also be considered for a third opportunity after losing the Flames to Calgary in 1980 and the Thrashers to Winnipeg in 2011. Apparently, the NHL’s expansion philosophy is that no failed American hockey market should be left behind.
Meanwhile, Quebec City already has an NHL-calibre arena and a growing population that would enthusiastically support a team. Its greatest disadvantage is that it would add few new American television viewers and offer limited leverage in U.S. media negotiations. That tells us almost everything we need to know. Gary Bettman clearly looks at the Canadian teams as an unfortunate nuisance. How else do you explain three teams in the New York region, two teams in Los Angeles, and just one in hockey-mad southern Ontario?
At 32 teams, the league finally has perfect numerical balance: 16 teams in each conference, eight in each division and half the league qualifying for the playoffs. It is a sensible place to stop. But if growth is inevitable, a new Canadian franchise is long overdue.
Instead, Bettman appears determined to make the NHL bigger because bigger produces expansion fees, additional television markets and higher franchise values. The quality of the competition seems to be further down the list.
But the league should answer one question before collecting another expansion cheque: Does adding more teams make NHL hockey better—or does it merely make NHL owners richer?
We already know Gary Bettman’s answer. By the time he does finally say goodbye, it will be too late.
