“Not Guilty” Isn’t Innocent: Why the NHL Got it Right

In a bold but necessary move, the NHL announced that the five former players criminally charged in connection with the 2018 Hockey Canada sexual assault scandal will remain ineligible to play in the league pending further review, despite all being found “not guilty” in a criminal trial.

Unsurprisingly, the decision has drawn criticism, most notably from the NHL Players’ Association, which argues that, due to these acquittals, the players deserve “the opportunity to return to work” in the world’s top league. A quick scroll through the comment sections of social media shows the NHLPA is not alone in that view.

But here’s the thing: they’re wrong.

While some may believe Gary Bettman is overstepping his authority, he isn’t. In fact, from a business and legal standpoint, he’s doing exactly what the situation demands.

“Not Guilty” ≠ Innocent

There’s a persistent public misconception worth clearing up: courts do not declare people innocent. In a criminal trial, the standard is proof beyond a reasonable doubt - a deliberately high bar designed to prevent wrongful convictions. A verdict of “not guilty” simply means the prosecution failed to meet that standard. It does not mean the accused is exonerated, nor does it confirm that they didn’t commit the act.

A striking example of this comes from the sad case of William Mullins-Johnson, a Canadian man wrongfully convicted of murdering his four-year-old niece. Years later, new forensic evidence led to his release and a public apology. But even then, he fought, unsuccessfully, to have the court formally declare him innocent.

That declaration never came.

Under Canadian law, courts don’t make findings of innocence. They can overturn a conviction or issue an acquittal, but they stop short of affirming factual innocence. As a result, even those exonerated by new evidence can remain under a cloud of suspicion.

The Canadian legal system - like its counterparts in the U.S. and U.K. - does not clear someone’s name. It simply declines to punish, based on a criminal standard. That’s why professional sports leagues like the NHL can’t - and shouldn’t - treat a “not guilty” verdict as the final word.

The NHL has a broader duty: to their fans, their sponsors, and the public. And that means doing its own due diligence - even when the criminal courts have spoken.

Article 18-A: Bettman’s Authority to Act

The NHL’s Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) explicitly gives the Commissioner broad discretion under Article 18-A to discipline players for “conduct detrimental to the League or the game of hockey.” This includes off-ice behaviour, regardless of whether it results in a criminal conviction.

Bettman has previously exercised this authority in the case of Slava Voynov, the former Los Angeles King, who was suspended indefinitely by the NHL in 2014 after being charged with - and ultimately pleading no contest to - domestic violence. The league suspended Voynov even though he avoided a full trial and served a relatively short jail sentence. The message was clear: the NHL is not a passive bystander to the justice system - it is an active guardian of its own reputation.

Protecting the Business of Hockey

Gary Bettman’s responsibilities go far beyond box scores and salary caps. He is the de facto CEO of a multi-billion-dollar enterprise. That means safeguarding sponsor relationships, maintaining the public’s trust, and ensuring long-term fan engagement. In the wake of Hockey Canada's own disastrous handling of the 2018 scandal - settling lawsuits with hush money and losing major corporate sponsors - the NHL cannot afford to appear indifferent to the public’s demand for accountability.

Allowing players facing such serious allegations, regardless of a “not guilty” verdict, to return immediately to the ice would risk alienating the fan base and jeopardize the league’s standing with corporate partners.

Acquittal Isn’t a Ban — But It Shouldn’t Guarantee a Return

To be clear, the NHL has not permanently banned the players in question. Nor should it. A “not guilty” verdict doesn’t entitle them to immediate reinstatement, but it also doesn’t preclude the possibility of them returning to the league in the future.

If, following a thorough, independent investigation, the NHL determines that a player’s conduct does not violate its standards under Article 18-A of the CBA - and if that player’s on-ice performance still warrants a contract - then a return to the league is absolutely within the realm of possibility.

But that’s a long way from where we are now.

What the NHL must not do is rush this process in the name of public relations damage control or to appease those conflating acquittal with exoneration. Rebuilding public trust requires deliberate and transparent decision-making, not knee-jerk reinstatements.

The league owes it to its fans, its players, its sponsors - and frankly, to the game itself - to proceed with caution, integrity, and clarity. That means taking the time necessary to investigate, assess, and ultimately decide whether these individuals meet the standard of conduct expected of anyone privileged enough to wear an NHL jersey.

In short: playing again is not off the table. But earning that opportunity will require more than a criminal acquittal - it will require accountability, transparency, and a genuine commitment to the values the league claims to uphold.

A Privilege, Not a Right

Let’s be clear: playing in the NHL is a privilege, not a right. Just as a Fortune 500 company can choose not to hire someone whose actions might bring disrepute to the brand, the NHL is entitled - indeed, obligated - to uphold a standard that reflects its values.

By sidelining these players pending an internal review, Bettman is preserving the integrity of the league and sending an unmistakable message: a verdict in criminal court is not the only barometer of professional eligibility.

In doing so, Bettman is not undermining due process - he’s reinforcing that athletes, like anyone else in positions of influence and visibility, are held to higher standards. And in the court of public trust, that is the only verdict that matters.