Hainsey pushes back on Bettman over no‑trade clauses and player rights

Tension has emerged between the NHL and its players’ association over the future of no‑trade and no‑move clauses. In a recent appearance on Sportsnet’s The FAN Hockey Show, commissioner Gary Bettman said he does not believe no‑move clauses are a good thing, comments that quickly drew a sharp response from the NHLPA.

NHLPA assistant executive director Ron Hainsey answered in an interview with Pierre LeBrun published Monday by The Athletic, framing the issue as a direct challenge to protections players earned at the bargaining table. He said the union views the current discussion around no‑move and no‑trade clauses as an attack on CBA‑negotiated rights, and intends to respond accordingly.

Recent trade dynamics fuel debate over clauses

The disagreement comes as more star players use contractual protection to influence where they can be traded. Brady Tkachuk’s off‑season move to the Florida Panthers is one prominent example of a player steering his destination. Dylan Larkin of the Detroit Red Wings and Connor Hellebuyck of the Winnipeg Jets have also used their clauses to limit possible landing spots in trade talks.

From Hainsey’s perspective, that is exactly how the system was designed to operate. He emphasized that players are entitled to negotiate not just salary and term but also no‑move and no‑trade protection when they reach agreements with their clubs. Once such a clause is in place, a team cannot deal that player to the specified clubs without his approval, whether the list covers a handful of teams or the entire league.

League questions impact on teams, fans and players

Bettman sees potential downside in how these clauses are now being used. He argued that the growing practice of players both demanding trades and narrowing their preferred destinations was never the original intent of no‑trade protections. In his view, this trend may not serve teams, fans or even players well in the long term.

At the same time, the commissioner noted that one off‑season does not yet constitute a systemic problem. He said the league will monitor how things evolve and, if the pattern persists, will have to address the matter with the NHLPA as part of broader discussions about what is best for the game, for players as a whole and for the league.

Player agents, however, insist that no‑trade and no‑move clauses are central to many high‑end contracts. Agent J.P. Barry told The Athletic that players reduce their compensation demands in order to secure a no‑trade clause, effectively paying for that protection. He added that if the NHL wants to remove such clauses, the conversation should also extend to other core elements of the system, such as buyouts and the hard salary cap.

The public back‑and‑forth does not change any contracts in place, but it underscores a fault line that could loom large in the next round of collective bargaining. How no‑trade and no‑move clauses are handled going forward now appears set to become a central issue in labour relations between the league and its players.