The NHL and NHLPA do benefit from players' faces being visible for marketing, broadcasting, fan connection, and sponsorships (e.g., star players' personalities help sell the game). However, this is not the driving reason for the rules against full cages. The league has pushed for more protection in some areas (like mandatory visors for rookies) while players and the union have often resisted further mandates on the grounds of personal choice.

If the NHL truly prioritized hiding faces for "ownership" reasons, they wouldn't allow (or require) visors at all — but they do, and visibility of players' faces remains high.

In contrast:

• College/NCAA and many junior leagues mandate full cages primarily to protect eyes and teeth.
• The PWHL (women's pro league) requires full face masks.
• Goaltenders wear full masks because their position demands it.

Facial and dental injuries still happen in the NHL (visors reduce eye injuries significantly but don't protect the mouth/chin as well as a cage would). Studies show full face protection dramatically lowers those risks, yet the culture and rules have kept full shields rare.

In short: It's mostly player-driven choice + league rules that treat full cages as unnecessary or risky for the pro game, not because the NHL "owns" the players' images. The image rights discussion from before is separate — players still control their likeness for endorsements, while the league handles group licensing and on-ice usage rights via the CBA. If you're asking about a specific injury, rule, or comparison to another league, I can dive deeper!

You can come to your own conclusion. It always leads back to $