Earlier this week, Editor in Leaf writer Nestor Quixtan took a deep dive into the NHL’s new collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and what it could mean for the Toronto Maple Leafs. It’s a worthwhile read. In this post, I’ll build on that discussion, looking specifically at how the CBA’s revised bonus rules might have influenced Mitch Marner’s departure and could shape the Maple Leafs’ ability to re-sign Auston Matthews down the line.
Related: Every Team’s Top Breakout Candidate for 2025-26: Atlantic Division
The issue here isn’t just about money—it’s about strategy, tax structures, and how Toronto adjusts to a shifting NHL landscape.
Changes to the NHL’s CBA Impact Canadian Teams
The NHL’s updated CBA includes a small but significant change that could have substantial consequences for Canadian teams, particularly the Maple Leafs. At the heart of it is an upper limit on the amount of a player’s salary that can be paid as a signing bonus.
(Mandatory Credit: John E. Sokolowski-Imagn Images)
In the past, this loophole allowed high-income individuals in Canada to mitigate the impact of steep tax rates. But under the new rules, teams are limited to paying just 60% of a contract’s total value in bonuses. That’s down from 90%, which was the standard for stars like Matthews and Marner.
Why Signing Bonuses Mattered So Much in Toronto
Toronto has relied heavily on signing bonuses to keep its top players happy despite Canada’s higher taxes. These bonuses are taxed differently—and more favourably—than regular pay. It’s the same strategy employed by wealthy corporate executives who draw modest salaries but receive substantial performance bonuses.
Related: Maple Leafs News & Rumours: 4 Big Questions, Matthews, Marner, Dubas & Shanahan
For players, it wasn’t just about taxes; it was about predictability. Matthews, for instance, earned 90% of his four-year deal in bonuses, paid out every July 1. For the rest of the year, he earned near the league minimum. The accounting might look strange on paper, but it worked in practice—until now.
The Matthews Question: Will It Happen Again?
Matthews is a special case. Although he plays in Canada, he resides in Arizona. That means he pays U.S. state and federal taxes, not Canadian ones. This allowed the Maple Leafs to craft a deal that was financially efficient for both sides.
But with the new 60% limit, Matthews’ next contract might not be as tax-friendly. Unless he’s willing to take home less (which is unlikely), the Maple Leafs might need to find new ways to sweeten the deal—or risk losing him altogether.
What Mitch Marner’s Exit Tells Us
Marner didn’t have the same tax flexibility as Matthews. As a Canadian citizen residing in Ontario, his earnings were taxed at full Canadian rates. But now that he’s signed with the Vegas Golden Knights, his primary tax residence shifts to Nevada, where there’s no state income tax. Perhaps wisely, he was always transparent about the fact that he and his family were moving to Las Vegas and making Nevada their new home.
Related: Maple Leafs Take Bigger Swings With Their Cap Room
That change is significant. It’s likely, from a dollars-and-cents perspective, Marner’s decision wasn’t just about escaping Toronto’s media scrutiny, despite the public narrative that (the cynical side of me suggests) was sagaciously constructed or at least allowed to be believed because it was never contested.
And while some fans may want to frame Marner’s exit from Toronto as grounded in psychological weakness or ego, in reality, he did what many of us would do in a similar situation. He chose what was best for his family’s long-term financial future. All along, his move could have been as simple as an economic reset.
What This Means for the Maple Leafs and Canadian Teams
This CBA change might seem like a minor bookkeeping tweak, but it will likely have immense ripple effects. It makes Canadian teams less competitive in the free agency market. Players now have fewer reasons to accept deals that leave them with smaller net pay compared to U.S.-based teams, especially in states with low or no income tax.
Mandatory Credit: Walter Tychnowicz-Imagn Images
If the Maple Leafs hope to play in the same sandbox (Vegas is, after all, in the middle of the desert) as the US-based teams with no state taxes, they will need to find new creative strategies. That might mean front-loading contracts in different ways or building in lifestyle incentives. But more than anything, it means adapting quickly in a league where even small changes can shift the competitive balance that has already existed between Canadian and US teams, and even between US teams in different states.
Final Thought: Adapt or Be Left Behind
This moment is pivotal in the evolution of NHL contract strategy. Canadian teams, and particularly the Maple Leafs, have long walked the tightrope between cap realities and tax laws. The new CBA rules suddenly removed one of their best tools.
Related: Revisiting the Maple Leafs’ Jake Muzzin Trade
But like any good business or organism, survival depends on adaptation. The Maple Leafs will need to be smarter, faster, and more flexible. The pressure’s on—not just to win, but to keep the talent that gives them a chance to compete. Otherwise, there’s a chance that all Canadian-based teams will become second-class citizens compared with many US-based teams.
