NHL expansion has long been a topic of discussion within the league.
Recently, NHL agent Allan Walsh noted on X that expansion could soon reach Houston and Atlanta, prompting debate about what adding franchises would mean for the league.
Although no immediate moves are expected, indicators suggest expansion could occur before the decade’s end. Commissioner Gary Bettman noted in April that the fee for a new franchise would likely exceed $1 billion.
In June, the league launched a six‑month review to assess the feasibility of adding a team in either Houston or Austin, Texas.
Bettman has warned against creating an imbalance—such as 17 teams in one conference and 16 in the other—so a 33rd franchise would likely be followed quickly by a 34th.
In my view, further NHL expansion would benefit both the league and the sport.
Arguments in Favor of NHL Expansion
Expansion inevitably dilutes talent, bringing more players from the AHL and other minor leagues into the NHL, even if they are not yet ready, while existing clubs risk losing skilled players in expansion drafts.
Reaching 34 teams would surpass the current totals of the NBA (30), NFL (32) and MLB (30). Nonetheless, the NHL continues to attract strong interest from ownership groups who see the league as a viable entertainment product.
Some argue that relocating existing franchises might be preferable, yet expansion and relocation are not mutually exclusive; the NHL could shift teams while still pursuing new markets.
Even after expansion, other major markets—including Indianapolis and New Orleans—have expressed interest in securing a franchise.
Interest also remains strong in Canada, with Quebec City and a second Toronto‑area franchise frequently mentioned. Should any team struggle in its home market, several cities stand ready to take over.
NHL Expansion Opportunity In Houston And Austin Suggests More Teams Are On The Way
On Tuesday, NHL commissioner Gary Bettman said the league will explore expansion opportunities in Texas. But why stop at 33 teams if Houston or Austin gets a franchise?
Expansion could also prompt a revision of the playoff structure, including how many teams qualify. Adopting an NBA‑style model would grant the top six teams in each conference automatic playoff berths.
Teams seeded seventh through tenth would compete in a play‑in tournament for the remaining two spots per conference, with regular‑season performance determining seeding.
With 20 teams qualifying for the playoffs, the impact of a larger league on competition would be balanced. If each conference sent ten teams to the postseason, the race for the final berth would heighten the drama of the season’s closing games.
Such a format could also boost revenue for additional franchises, aligning with Bettman’s goal of fostering lucrative financial conditions.
The NHL Players Association would welcome the addition of roughly 23 jobs per new franchise, while owners favor expansion because they retain the full fee without sharing it with the union. Prospective markets would also benefit from the surge of attention that accompanies a new team.
Given these advantages for players, owners, and host cities, expansion appears all but certain.
Key Takeaways
While a more talent‑dense league with fewer teams would undoubtedly be more compelling, the NHL has no intention of reverting to an Original Six configuration.
Fans in non‑traditional markets deserve the chance to show they can support an NHL franchise; should any market falter, contraction remains a possibility, though it is uncommon in North American professional sports.
Bettman’s aim is to grow the sport, making expansion a likely outcome. Adding a second team in Texas would be a positive development, and the league hopes to revive hockey in Atlanta and Phoenix as well.
Only time will reveal whether expanding to 34 teams proves wise or overreaches, but there are compelling arguments that it could enhance the sport for years ahead.
