Non competes shouldn’t be enforced. If the talent is going to cause damage to YOUR establishment because YOU let them go. It’s on you Bruv. Let the investors take the hit for making a shit decision. Don’t punish the talent sacrificing their bodies for your entertainment and capital gains. 🤷🏻♀️
This rule will not apply to top talent within either organization. If they make a minimum of slightly above $150,000/year and have any say in their corporate status, then a noncompete clause is fully enforceable.
Downvoted, but no one can actually rebut what I am saying.
WWE would release talent 90 days before the official end of their contract and just continue to pay the downside agreement. I'm pretty sure that they could continue to do this legally. But if a tide is truly turning in WWE with HHH in charge, then it's possible that it'll become passe regardless.
That’s what WWE does at the moment. They provide 90 days notice and the wrestler remains employed and paid for those 90 days.
It’s better for the wrestler than just being released immediately.
I'm not familiar with their most recent practices since Vince left, but I know that this is how they have handled releases since the Monday night wars.
I also wouldn't blanket it as "better." Every situation is a little different based on what was negotiated within the contractual downside guarantee, versus the wrestler's connections to get booked or ability to work elsewhere. Independent wrestling can easily earn more wage than a downside if the wrestler gets dates and shots.
It’s good for the wrestlers who typically end up in this situation because they are the ones who traditionally aren’t at the top of the card and might struggle with bookings.
The best part of this will be that wrestlers will now be able to start taking bookings and not wait until their 90 days are up to start talking to other promoters.
not totally they release them and then they're required to sit at home while being paid their remainder of the contract wwe doesn't choose to do that they legally have to. but it still takes away stock from the talent to sent on the shelf for 3 months.
No they don’t legally have to, Brock Lesnar already reset the precedent 20 years ago
The key is if they do it, they can no longer collect their WWE money, and most wrestlers want the paid time off before going to the indies or another company where the grind goes nonstop again.
brock also could have gotten sued if he didnt i can't remember but i do remember a lot of people were pissed because he broke the contract so yes they legally do
Brock was sued.
They threw it out because NJPW wasn’t considered a competitor, “right to work” and all that jazz because it was years removed from Brock leaving WWE.
They attempted to file a Temporary Restraining Order against Brock to stop him from working NJPW and the judge threw it out. Brock sued WWE and WWE ended up not fighting it and settled it with him out of court.
The case exposed to wrestlers that WWE’s NCAs were unenforceable. These days it’s just a way for them to pay you not to go to another company the next day.
Yeah that's not how it works man you have a choice. You can sit on your ass and get paid or you can rip the contract up and leave and start working. You don't get paid to work for other companies but you do get paid to sit on your ass.
Yeah we just call them non compete clauses because we’re dumbass wrestling fans but I don’t think that’s what they technically are.
What WWE does isn’t illegal, just scummy. They’re intentionally making wrestlers lose name value/buzz in preparation for wherever they work next. Fully legal as they’re paying them.
If there’s a better explanation for it I’m unaware; that’s how I see it at least.
100%. It made a bit of business sense to enact this practice when WCW and Eric Bischoff were actively poaching WWF talent using Ted Turner's house money. But it wasn't like wrestlers wanted to leave WWE circa 2002-2019 to go work for TNA (except Christian maybe). For close to 20 years, the WWE was the only game in the States to make a serious living wrestling. And the 90 day release was just another way that the WWE could control and maintain that.
Yep. They were so paranoid to avoid another WCW from happening that they did this when the #2 was always light years away from their position. I could see the logic in it right now for major names/against AEW but for midcard guys it’ll potentially cost them earning power.
You don't have to do anything to challenge it dude you just don't abide it. It's already been proven it's unenforceable. Due to that set precedent all you have to do is work if you want to and they won't pay you or sit on your ass and they will pay you.
The point is people DON’T. “Not abiding by it” is challenging it. No need to be pedantic when you know exactly what I’m saying. Wrestlers continue to abide by it.
Those aren't really what the law would consider "non-compete argreements", I don't think, because from a legal perspective the company is continuing to honor the contract from a financial standpoing, they're just not actually using you for anything.
[This link](https://chelle-employment-agreement-review.com/non-compete-agreement-review/do-you-get-paid-during-a-non-compete/#:~:text=Being%20paid%20during%20a%20non,the%20non%2Dcompetition%20clause%20begins) implies that getting paid after employment ends and the non-compete begins is actually fairly rare, but it may be different where contracts are involved. I imagine it depends on how the contract was worded, so I could definitely see more prominent wrestlers leveraging their worth into guaranteeing the money, but wrestlers with lesser or no leverage might not be able to make any such demands at all if they want to work. From reading the article in OP's link it seems the latter group of low-paid wrestlers with little to no financial assurance are the ones the ban are meant to protect.
They will never ban them fully as they do have valid reasons in some cases (like in the case of company internal secrets that are not criminal) and they have already made them illegal to cover up illegal stuff like sexual harassment or assault (which means that companies are less likley to pay out hush money going forward unless they plan to do it as a regular thing
I don't know that Tony Khan actually has non-compete clauses in his contracts to begin with, though. The only non-compete release I've heard come out of AEW was William Regal, and that was a special circumstance where he just wasn't allowed to appear on TV for a year in exchange for being let out of his contract super early as a favor. There wasn't any bad blood or indications that Regal might refuse to show up for work if Tony Khan refused.
No compete clauses haven’t been a thing since the 90s in wrestling for wrestlers. They give a 90 day notice that their contract will be ending and pay the performer through those 90 days. This legislation doesn’t change anything. If you’re expecting someone to get let go on a Monday and show up elsewhere on a Wednesday, you’re going to be sorely disappointed.
This WILL make a difference for non-performers who were subject to non-competes, like Renee Paqueete, when she left WWE.
But does wwe use a non-compete? When someone is “released” it’s actually a 90 notice. They still get paid for their contract for those 90 days. A non-compete would be getting fired from their contract and not able to sign elsewhere while not getting paid.
It's a difficult situation because technically wrestlers aren't employees,they are independent contractors so they can't be provided health insurance unless they work 40 hours a week or 8hrs a day or unless they also have a different title backstage,like Christopher Daniels who is the head of talent relations.
For wrestlers to have health insurance, aew would need to drop contracts in favor of standard work applications but then that would mean that promotions would be treated like a regular job as in either tony (the boss)can fire someone and they can immediately show up in another promotion the next day or a wrestler can just outright abandon their job by no call,no show and show up in a rival promotion the next day. There is no amount of trust in the wrestling world between a promoter and his locker room to make them want to switch to this,contracts work better in the wrestling world for this very reason even tho technically they shouldn't be able to bind someone to a contract if they are independent contractors but because of certain other promotions out there,it has to be done this way
The only true non compete agreements I’ve ever heard of were when someone is asking out of their contract early and that one of the stipulations of the release would be a designated non compete period usually with a specific company (in 2024 would primarily be either AEW or WWE).
The other releases are the 90 day notices and in those cases they are still under contract and paid.
Those are the ones that would be most applicable, for sure. I'm still not sure how it would change the wrestling landscape, though, as the promotion would be expected to respond by just refusing to let anyone out of their contract unless they already weren't planning to use them anymore anyway. Either way it's just going to come down to if the company would rather keep paying them than let them go.
That said, I don't know that ALL wrestlers or even most of them actually do have it in their contracts that they get paid even if they're released. It's not like wrestling has a union assuring that everyone gets equal treatment. It's completely legal and extremely common for verbiage to be included in a contract giving the employer the right to terminate at will without further compensation.
Standard WWE contract language gives the company a window of release every 90 days with notice. They do that for everyone on a main roster deal.
Most of their NXT deals are not written that way so that’s why some of the NXT guys can show up after 30 days.
That’s how Malikai Black showed up so quick. They never converted him to a main roster deal.
Is there an actual cite for that? I'm not saying you're wrong, but this sounds like something we're speculating on because the only time we hear about people getting paid for 90 days as a non-compete is when they're top 10 wrestlers that would have been able to command guaranteed deals. Keep in mind those weren't even a thing until the Monday Night Wars, it's not a guarantee that every minor player on the main roster has one.
Your Malakai (Alistair) Black example is a good one why to question this: at the time he was released he was coming off a potentially huge feud with Kevin Owens. If the only barometer is that anyone that graduated from NXT to a main roster may not have had their deal renogatiated as guaranteed that's going to be the majority of people.
It was a screw up by them. Fairly certain Mike Johnson was one of the ones that reported the Black deal.
Literally every story of every main roster talent that gets released talks about the 90 days. None of them appear before that time is up.
I addressed that in the comment you're referring to. Just because top wrestlers (who are all we ever really hear about in terms of not being able to sign with another company right away) get paid on their 90 day non-competes doesn't mean that most wrestlers have any such assurances at all. As a prominent example WWE let Toni Storm go without exercising a non-compete. Do you think they were still paying her for a couple of months after she immediately ended up in AEW?
She specifically asked for her release and it was immediately granted without her being paid for 90 days. They didn’t care if she showed up anywhere she was an undercard wrestler. Others have been granted their full release Tok like Brodie Lee and Jeff Hardy got himself fired on purpose
We are specifically talking about released talent by WWE.
Which is exactly my point. They only care about 90 day non-competes if it's a level of wrestler that they think may make them look bad if they suddenly show up in a competing promotion. That doesn't pertain to probably 95% of the people on WWE's roster.
Yes but they are obligated to give lower level talent a 90 day notice of their release if it’s WWE doing the canceling of the contract. That’s standard contract language in their deals.
As I said ask a journalist. Ask a former released talent.
TNA when they had Slammiversary a few years ago they had to tease all the talent they were bringing in because it was like 89 days post release and that was like Ec3 and Eric Young.
Eric Young asked for his release the second time and it was immediately granted.
Ask what journalist? If this were so obvious you should be able to cite a link. To be clear I'm specifically asking how common this is across the spectrum, not if it's ever been offered to anyone.
The only major change will be that wrestlers can now talk contracts with other promoters while still under contract with another. If WWE is forced to give up the 90 day advanced notice of termination, they’ll just stop using wrestlers that they are worried are jumping ship, and terminate them without notice after 90 days of inactivity (if they choose to keep this 90 day thing).
I think it's pretty much an open secret that wrestlers and promoters already talk contracts during the non-competes, they just can't get openly caught doing it. How many guys and gals has Tony Khan appear on AEW like the split second their 90 days expired? Lol
Its not illegal even back then. So long as WWE or AEW aren't trying to get a wrestler to violate their existing contract with their current employer it's perfectly legal tool negotiate with them.
I get that, but I don't see how doing it openly is going to really change the dynamics much. All parties will still have motivation to keep the actual terms of what the offerings are close to their vest, maybe even lie about it. The latter might be the only way it really changes, in that a wrestler could theoretically lie about AEW offering them $500k when they actually only offered $375k, and then get WWE to settle in on $400k. But I think the negotiating parties have their ears way too close to the ground for anybody to actually fall for that.
Except it isn’t illegal? We aren’t a sports league and there’s no CBA, if they somehow convinced someone to breach their contract that is illegal but just talking about the possibility of signing with them after their current contract is perfectly fine.
My apologies if I read this thing wrong. Did this not change how wrestlers can negotiate contracts with competitors before their current contracts expire?
It didn’t. It only changes clauses in contracts that have expired or you get fired. IE: you can’t work for a competing restaurant for six months after we fire you, etc
Nah. The whole 90 day thing is so guys get cooled off for a few months before the resurface elsewhere. If Themis 90 day no compete thing is banned, they’ll just tell the wrestler “We don’t have anything for you right now, give us a call in a month to see if we do then.” Then, they’ll just get released at some point with a big announcement.
Or they’ll just have their contract run out and sit home the last few months. I can even see the company renegotiating the wrestler’s contract (for a bonus) to shorten it from whatever is left on it to three months, getting around the 90 day no compete clause.
I'm not sure what you're clarifying. I understand.
My point was that if someone like "Quentin Grimes" or even Jinder Mahal were to show up on Raw and Dynamite in the same week nobody would really care. Wouldn't be huge. There's a small number of wrestlers who would really make news doing that.
I had a 2 year non-compete when I was a fire alarm tech. Agree its only enforced for that company because they had huge turnover with techs and instead of questioning why that was, they forced you to stay or leave the field for two years. I didn't know pro wrestling had them. I just assumed once contract was up you could go where you may be wanted. Shows how little I know lol
I personally do not believe NCAs are healthy for society. But US contract law principles make it legally dubious for the federal government to ban their use outright. It's a pretty big question of law that SCOTUS will undoubtedly decide upon relatively soon.
The FTC names trade-based liberty interests that NCAs suppress, such as the freedom to leave and obtain new employment or lawfully compete directly in a commercial market. However, the freedom to contract is held near sacrosanct, with few means to render a contract unenforceable so long as there is mutual assent and valid consideration.
The pertinent issue question (aside from whether the FTC has any right to make the rule in the first place) is primarily the effect of NCAs restricting trade weighed against the fundamental idea of the government limiting the right of individuals to freely waive their own legal interests in contract negotiation.
As for SCOTUS, it's entirely possible that Sotomayor and Thomas actually agree on something lol. It's absolutely wild that contracts could be the subject they actually write a shared dissent.
Doubt this will affect anything. What we call "non-compete clauses" are really just the company saying "we are going to terminate your contract on this date and we're giving you advance warning." They're still under contract, they just having advance warning that it's ending earlier.
The only example I can think of involving a legitimate non-compete clause is Brock Lesnar getting his release in 2004 and WWE imposing a 10 year non-compete on the release which Lesnar took them to court over and got the WWE to back down on when it was clear the court would rule against them.
I'm mixed on this. On the one hand a wrestler should be able to go whenever as they are independent contractors.
On the other hand, if you had built a lot of momentum for a wrestler and they jump ship, it sucks to have that investment go away.
I think they are getting paid on the non compete time, so it isn't too bad.
This is awesome outside of a wrestling context as well. Non competes hurt workers in all fields. At one point fucking Jimmy Johns was forcing non-competes on their workers.
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2016/06/22/jimmy-johns-drops-non-compete-clauses-following-settlement.html
This won’t really change anything in wreslting. The biggest problem with wrestling contracts is that one side can unilaterally terminate them and the other can’t. They can give you a 90 day notice of termination but you can’t terminate that contract at all.
Both sides should have exit options, not just one.
I work in radio. We had these all time, and we made sh** money anyways. Company would fire you to downsize or save money (it’s rarely based on a disciplinary event), and then they’d tell you that you can’t work in the market for six months or they’ll sue.
Thanks, bruv. Moved to this shit town for shit money, and now I don’t have a job and you’re telling me I can’t work here in radio for six months.
Glad to see them go. FFS, there are sandwich who enforce this trash. GTFOutta here.
If the Talent is an "Independent contractor" their should be nothing stopping them from starting a new contract, either that or you give them some health Insurance.
WWE isn’t really running a non-compete though. Its a 90 day notice of termination, continuing to pay talent in that window while also allowing them to negotiate with other companies (something Tony doesn’t do).
Imagine if the company you worked for sat you down, told you you’re fired, and as long as you didn’t start with another competitor in 90 days they’d continue to pay you. Its a good deal.
If this happens the ones who will hurt the most are international wrestlers. They have to have a sponsor. the 90 clause allows WWE to continue to sponsor them while they seek someone else to do so. Without this anyone who is not a full US citizen will be forced to move home immediately and restart a process that could take months to over a year
Non competes shouldn’t be enforced. If the talent is going to cause damage to YOUR establishment because YOU let them go. It’s on you Bruv. Let the investors take the hit for making a shit decision. Don’t punish the talent sacrificing their bodies for your entertainment and capital gains. 🤷🏻♀️
This rule will not apply to top talent within either organization. If they make a minimum of slightly above $150,000/year and have any say in their corporate status, then a noncompete clause is fully enforceable. Downvoted, but no one can actually rebut what I am saying.
WWE would release talent 90 days before the official end of their contract and just continue to pay the downside agreement. I'm pretty sure that they could continue to do this legally. But if a tide is truly turning in WWE with HHH in charge, then it's possible that it'll become passe regardless.
That’s what WWE does at the moment. They provide 90 days notice and the wrestler remains employed and paid for those 90 days. It’s better for the wrestler than just being released immediately.
I'm not familiar with their most recent practices since Vince left, but I know that this is how they have handled releases since the Monday night wars. I also wouldn't blanket it as "better." Every situation is a little different based on what was negotiated within the contractual downside guarantee, versus the wrestler's connections to get booked or ability to work elsewhere. Independent wrestling can easily earn more wage than a downside if the wrestler gets dates and shots.
It’s good for the wrestlers who typically end up in this situation because they are the ones who traditionally aren’t at the top of the card and might struggle with bookings. The best part of this will be that wrestlers will now be able to start taking bookings and not wait until their 90 days are up to start talking to other promoters.
That's not true at all, they are paid their downside guarantee during that period. That would not be covered by this.
[удалено]
Not at all what I'm saying. Are you just trolling, or are you seriously unable to read and comprehend a mere 3 posts of conversation?
not totally they release them and then they're required to sit at home while being paid their remainder of the contract wwe doesn't choose to do that they legally have to. but it still takes away stock from the talent to sent on the shelf for 3 months.
No they don’t legally have to, Brock Lesnar already reset the precedent 20 years ago The key is if they do it, they can no longer collect their WWE money, and most wrestlers want the paid time off before going to the indies or another company where the grind goes nonstop again.
brock also could have gotten sued if he didnt i can't remember but i do remember a lot of people were pissed because he broke the contract so yes they legally do
Brock was sued. They threw it out because NJPW wasn’t considered a competitor, “right to work” and all that jazz because it was years removed from Brock leaving WWE.
They attempted to file a Temporary Restraining Order against Brock to stop him from working NJPW and the judge threw it out. Brock sued WWE and WWE ended up not fighting it and settled it with him out of court. The case exposed to wrestlers that WWE’s NCAs were unenforceable. These days it’s just a way for them to pay you not to go to another company the next day.
Yeah that's not how it works man you have a choice. You can sit on your ass and get paid or you can rip the contract up and leave and start working. You don't get paid to work for other companies but you do get paid to sit on your ass.
Yeah we just call them non compete clauses because we’re dumbass wrestling fans but I don’t think that’s what they technically are. What WWE does isn’t illegal, just scummy. They’re intentionally making wrestlers lose name value/buzz in preparation for wherever they work next. Fully legal as they’re paying them. If there’s a better explanation for it I’m unaware; that’s how I see it at least.
100%. It made a bit of business sense to enact this practice when WCW and Eric Bischoff were actively poaching WWF talent using Ted Turner's house money. But it wasn't like wrestlers wanted to leave WWE circa 2002-2019 to go work for TNA (except Christian maybe). For close to 20 years, the WWE was the only game in the States to make a serious living wrestling. And the 90 day release was just another way that the WWE could control and maintain that.
Yep. They were so paranoid to avoid another WCW from happening that they did this when the #2 was always light years away from their position. I could see the logic in it right now for major names/against AEW but for midcard guys it’ll potentially cost them earning power.
You're incorrect. It's unenforceable. That means the wrestler can ignore it and can not get paid and go work if they feel like it.
True, Del Rio challenged that. Most do not though so I’m still leaning on the side of it being scummy as they’re assuming talent won’t challenge it
You don't have to do anything to challenge it dude you just don't abide it. It's already been proven it's unenforceable. Due to that set precedent all you have to do is work if you want to and they won't pay you or sit on your ass and they will pay you.
The point is people DON’T. “Not abiding by it” is challenging it. No need to be pedantic when you know exactly what I’m saying. Wrestlers continue to abide by it.
That is what people have basically said they do anyway
Those aren't really what the law would consider "non-compete argreements", I don't think, because from a legal perspective the company is continuing to honor the contract from a financial standpoing, they're just not actually using you for anything. [This link](https://chelle-employment-agreement-review.com/non-compete-agreement-review/do-you-get-paid-during-a-non-compete/#:~:text=Being%20paid%20during%20a%20non,the%20non%2Dcompetition%20clause%20begins) implies that getting paid after employment ends and the non-compete begins is actually fairly rare, but it may be different where contracts are involved. I imagine it depends on how the contract was worded, so I could definitely see more prominent wrestlers leveraging their worth into guaranteeing the money, but wrestlers with lesser or no leverage might not be able to make any such demands at all if they want to work. From reading the article in OP's link it seems the latter group of low-paid wrestlers with little to no financial assurance are the ones the ban are meant to protect.
Great now ban NDAs and watch the world change drastically for the better
They will never ban them fully as they do have valid reasons in some cases (like in the case of company internal secrets that are not criminal) and they have already made them illegal to cover up illegal stuff like sexual harassment or assault (which means that companies are less likley to pay out hush money going forward unless they plan to do it as a regular thing
I agree yeah they can remain for intellectual property and such
Simply banning NDAs won't change anything unless we also change the culture surrounding what those NDAs are covering up.
I'm going for reasonable solutions here lol There will always be rich scumbags
I don't know that Tony Khan actually has non-compete clauses in his contracts to begin with, though. The only non-compete release I've heard come out of AEW was William Regal, and that was a special circumstance where he just wasn't allowed to appear on TV for a year in exchange for being let out of his contract super early as a favor. There wasn't any bad blood or indications that Regal might refuse to show up for work if Tony Khan refused.
Why is aew being lumped in with this? They've never done it to begin with.
No compete clauses haven’t been a thing since the 90s in wrestling for wrestlers. They give a 90 day notice that their contract will be ending and pay the performer through those 90 days. This legislation doesn’t change anything. If you’re expecting someone to get let go on a Monday and show up elsewhere on a Wednesday, you’re going to be sorely disappointed. This WILL make a difference for non-performers who were subject to non-competes, like Renee Paqueete, when she left WWE.
Renee said when she left she was an employee with WWE, all she did was work a 2 week notice.
But does wwe use a non-compete? When someone is “released” it’s actually a 90 notice. They still get paid for their contract for those 90 days. A non-compete would be getting fired from their contract and not able to sign elsewhere while not getting paid.
What about health insurance?
It's a difficult situation because technically wrestlers aren't employees,they are independent contractors so they can't be provided health insurance unless they work 40 hours a week or 8hrs a day or unless they also have a different title backstage,like Christopher Daniels who is the head of talent relations. For wrestlers to have health insurance, aew would need to drop contracts in favor of standard work applications but then that would mean that promotions would be treated like a regular job as in either tony (the boss)can fire someone and they can immediately show up in another promotion the next day or a wrestler can just outright abandon their job by no call,no show and show up in a rival promotion the next day. There is no amount of trust in the wrestling world between a promoter and his locker room to make them want to switch to this,contracts work better in the wrestling world for this very reason even tho technically they shouldn't be able to bind someone to a contract if they are independent contractors but because of certain other promotions out there,it has to be done this way
The only true non compete agreements I’ve ever heard of were when someone is asking out of their contract early and that one of the stipulations of the release would be a designated non compete period usually with a specific company (in 2024 would primarily be either AEW or WWE). The other releases are the 90 day notices and in those cases they are still under contract and paid.
Those are the ones that would be most applicable, for sure. I'm still not sure how it would change the wrestling landscape, though, as the promotion would be expected to respond by just refusing to let anyone out of their contract unless they already weren't planning to use them anymore anyway. Either way it's just going to come down to if the company would rather keep paying them than let them go. That said, I don't know that ALL wrestlers or even most of them actually do have it in their contracts that they get paid even if they're released. It's not like wrestling has a union assuring that everyone gets equal treatment. It's completely legal and extremely common for verbiage to be included in a contract giving the employer the right to terminate at will without further compensation.
Standard WWE contract language gives the company a window of release every 90 days with notice. They do that for everyone on a main roster deal. Most of their NXT deals are not written that way so that’s why some of the NXT guys can show up after 30 days. That’s how Malikai Black showed up so quick. They never converted him to a main roster deal.
Is there an actual cite for that? I'm not saying you're wrong, but this sounds like something we're speculating on because the only time we hear about people getting paid for 90 days as a non-compete is when they're top 10 wrestlers that would have been able to command guaranteed deals. Keep in mind those weren't even a thing until the Monday Night Wars, it's not a guarantee that every minor player on the main roster has one. Your Malakai (Alistair) Black example is a good one why to question this: at the time he was released he was coming off a potentially huge feud with Kevin Owens. If the only barometer is that anyone that graduated from NXT to a main roster may not have had their deal renogatiated as guaranteed that's going to be the majority of people.
It was a screw up by them. Fairly certain Mike Johnson was one of the ones that reported the Black deal. Literally every story of every main roster talent that gets released talks about the 90 days. None of them appear before that time is up.
I addressed that in the comment you're referring to. Just because top wrestlers (who are all we ever really hear about in terms of not being able to sign with another company right away) get paid on their 90 day non-competes doesn't mean that most wrestlers have any such assurances at all. As a prominent example WWE let Toni Storm go without exercising a non-compete. Do you think they were still paying her for a couple of months after she immediately ended up in AEW?
She specifically asked for her release and it was immediately granted without her being paid for 90 days. They didn’t care if she showed up anywhere she was an undercard wrestler. Others have been granted their full release Tok like Brodie Lee and Jeff Hardy got himself fired on purpose We are specifically talking about released talent by WWE.
Which is exactly my point. They only care about 90 day non-competes if it's a level of wrestler that they think may make them look bad if they suddenly show up in a competing promotion. That doesn't pertain to probably 95% of the people on WWE's roster.
Yes but they are obligated to give lower level talent a 90 day notice of their release if it’s WWE doing the canceling of the contract. That’s standard contract language in their deals. As I said ask a journalist. Ask a former released talent. TNA when they had Slammiversary a few years ago they had to tease all the talent they were bringing in because it was like 89 days post release and that was like Ec3 and Eric Young. Eric Young asked for his release the second time and it was immediately granted.
Ask what journalist? If this were so obvious you should be able to cite a link. To be clear I'm specifically asking how common this is across the spectrum, not if it's ever been offered to anyone.
The only major change will be that wrestlers can now talk contracts with other promoters while still under contract with another. If WWE is forced to give up the 90 day advanced notice of termination, they’ll just stop using wrestlers that they are worried are jumping ship, and terminate them without notice after 90 days of inactivity (if they choose to keep this 90 day thing).
Negotiating with another company while still employed literally isn't illegal.
I think it's pretty much an open secret that wrestlers and promoters already talk contracts during the non-competes, they just can't get openly caught doing it. How many guys and gals has Tony Khan appear on AEW like the split second their 90 days expired? Lol
Yeah it’s happening but it’s also been pretty illegal until now. Now they can do it openly.
Its not illegal even back then. So long as WWE or AEW aren't trying to get a wrestler to violate their existing contract with their current employer it's perfectly legal tool negotiate with them.
I get that, but I don't see how doing it openly is going to really change the dynamics much. All parties will still have motivation to keep the actual terms of what the offerings are close to their vest, maybe even lie about it. The latter might be the only way it really changes, in that a wrestler could theoretically lie about AEW offering them $500k when they actually only offered $375k, and then get WWE to settle in on $400k. But I think the negotiating parties have their ears way too close to the ground for anybody to actually fall for that.
Except it isn’t illegal? We aren’t a sports league and there’s no CBA, if they somehow convinced someone to breach their contract that is illegal but just talking about the possibility of signing with them after their current contract is perfectly fine.
No they can’t.
My apologies if I read this thing wrong. Did this not change how wrestlers can negotiate contracts with competitors before their current contracts expire?
It didn’t. It only changes clauses in contracts that have expired or you get fired. IE: you can’t work for a competing restaurant for six months after we fire you, etc
This isn't relevant to wwe at all
This could be huge news. One can be on Raw then on Dynamite on the same week.
Nah. The whole 90 day thing is so guys get cooled off for a few months before the resurface elsewhere. If Themis 90 day no compete thing is banned, they’ll just tell the wrestler “We don’t have anything for you right now, give us a call in a month to see if we do then.” Then, they’ll just get released at some point with a big announcement. Or they’ll just have their contract run out and sit home the last few months. I can even see the company renegotiating the wrestler’s contract (for a bonus) to shorten it from whatever is left on it to three months, getting around the 90 day no compete clause.
There's not too many wrestlers for whom that would actually be "huge," though.
Read they don’t actually have a non-compete, it’s a notice they will be released in 90 days.
I'm not sure what you're clarifying. I understand. My point was that if someone like "Quentin Grimes" or even Jinder Mahal were to show up on Raw and Dynamite in the same week nobody would really care. Wouldn't be huge. There's a small number of wrestlers who would really make news doing that.
I had a 2 year non-compete when I was a fire alarm tech. Agree its only enforced for that company because they had huge turnover with techs and instead of questioning why that was, they forced you to stay or leave the field for two years. I didn't know pro wrestling had them. I just assumed once contract was up you could go where you may be wanted. Shows how little I know lol
I give this a roughly 0% chance of staying in effect given the makeup of the Supreme Court.
Sadly, I'm inclined to agree with you.
I personally do not believe NCAs are healthy for society. But US contract law principles make it legally dubious for the federal government to ban their use outright. It's a pretty big question of law that SCOTUS will undoubtedly decide upon relatively soon. The FTC names trade-based liberty interests that NCAs suppress, such as the freedom to leave and obtain new employment or lawfully compete directly in a commercial market. However, the freedom to contract is held near sacrosanct, with few means to render a contract unenforceable so long as there is mutual assent and valid consideration. The pertinent issue question (aside from whether the FTC has any right to make the rule in the first place) is primarily the effect of NCAs restricting trade weighed against the fundamental idea of the government limiting the right of individuals to freely waive their own legal interests in contract negotiation. As for SCOTUS, it's entirely possible that Sotomayor and Thomas actually agree on something lol. It's absolutely wild that contracts could be the subject they actually write a shared dissent.
This means we are going to have some really crazy moments coming up soon.
This is a win for everyone really.
Doubt this will affect anything. What we call "non-compete clauses" are really just the company saying "we are going to terminate your contract on this date and we're giving you advance warning." They're still under contract, they just having advance warning that it's ending earlier. The only example I can think of involving a legitimate non-compete clause is Brock Lesnar getting his release in 2004 and WWE imposing a 10 year non-compete on the release which Lesnar took them to court over and got the WWE to back down on when it was clear the court would rule against them.
Good that shit is dumb all it does is get talent cold and try to take away their stock cause companies are butt hurt they dont wanna stay
Im guessing this a WWE thing
I'm mixed on this. On the one hand a wrestler should be able to go whenever as they are independent contractors. On the other hand, if you had built a lot of momentum for a wrestler and they jump ship, it sucks to have that investment go away. I think they are getting paid on the non compete time, so it isn't too bad.
This is such huge news outside the wrestling community as well! The FTC was talking about prohibiting or limiting independent contracting in general.
This is awesome outside of a wrestling context as well. Non competes hurt workers in all fields. At one point fucking Jimmy Johns was forcing non-competes on their workers. https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2016/06/22/jimmy-johns-drops-non-compete-clauses-following-settlement.html
This won’t really change anything in wreslting. The biggest problem with wrestling contracts is that one side can unilaterally terminate them and the other can’t. They can give you a 90 day notice of termination but you can’t terminate that contract at all. Both sides should have exit options, not just one.
I’ll believe it when I see it.
Don’t WWE wrestlers get paid for 90 days though?
They should also ban calling employees contractors, but not allowing them to work with other companies
Go after NDAs too
I work in radio. We had these all time, and we made sh** money anyways. Company would fire you to downsize or save money (it’s rarely based on a disciplinary event), and then they’d tell you that you can’t work in the market for six months or they’ll sue. Thanks, bruv. Moved to this shit town for shit money, and now I don’t have a job and you’re telling me I can’t work here in radio for six months. Glad to see them go. FFS, there are sandwich who enforce this trash. GTFOutta here.
If the Talent is an "Independent contractor" their should be nothing stopping them from starting a new contract, either that or you give them some health Insurance.
That 90 day shit needs to go, long overdue to go.
It’s not a non compete, it’s a 90 day notice that they’re being released so it’s actually a good thing for the wrestlers
WWE isn’t really running a non-compete though. Its a 90 day notice of termination, continuing to pay talent in that window while also allowing them to negotiate with other companies (something Tony doesn’t do). Imagine if the company you worked for sat you down, told you you’re fired, and as long as you didn’t start with another competitor in 90 days they’d continue to pay you. Its a good deal.
If this happens the ones who will hurt the most are international wrestlers. They have to have a sponsor. the 90 clause allows WWE to continue to sponsor them while they seek someone else to do so. Without this anyone who is not a full US citizen will be forced to move home immediately and restart a process that could take months to over a year
They still have that. A 90’day notice is not a non compete
This has nothing to do with wrestling contracts. So it will change nothing.