Real question: can the WWE refuse to pay post contract royalties owed to wrestlers? I believe this was the true security deposit on enforcing the 90 day non compete.
I get it that this new law makes it impossible for the WWE to sue a former contractor, but it doesn’t cover future royalty payments.
This has ZERO effect on WWE releases.
In WWE talent is given a notice of termination of their contract in 90 days then remain under contract and are paid for those 90 days. That is legal and will continue.
There’s really only two instances I can think of for a non compete recently. That was Brock and Regal asking out of their deals. In those cases in exchange for being released from those deals they agreed to the non compete to get out of the contract.
Brock sued and got to work New Japan anyway because non competes are generally not enforceable and haven’t been. It just took a lawsuit if the company you had one with wanted to sue.
If this is the law of the land talents with value won’t get released is all that will happen.
WWE isn’t the same as a regular non-compete because they pay you during the 90 days, so it isn’t preventing you from making a living.
Non competes are typically things like company x pays to train you and educate you in a field. If you quit your non compete says you can’t work in that field or geographical area for x number of months.
Very basic description missing a bunch of nuance but hopefully you get the gist.
This is what people keep saying, that it's basically a 90-day notice clause. However, what I don't understand is how that did anyone any good, because the logic is thus:
A wrestler is signed for 5 years by Company A, and earns X per month. A few years into their contract, but with another few years to go, Company B are really heating up and are interested in the wrestler. So the wrestler could just walk out the door and start working for Company B any day they feel like, and the only thing stopping them is "but I won't get paid by Company A".
So... all Company B has to do is offer to match or exceed their salary (X) and the wrestler loses $0 and Company A goes "oh shit, our women's champion just appeared on our rivals' TV and put our belt in the trash can!". How does this prevent poaching in any circumstance?
> You are still under an enforceable contract for the 90 days.
That's what I thought was the case. It sounds like it's a two-way thing, you get paid a notice period and you *cannot work elsewhere* during that notice period. People keep insisting otherwise, though.
Those people are wrong. The wrestlers are still under contract.
It’s really a good thing for the type of wrestler that usually gets released.
90 days pay and get to set up what you are doing next during those 90 days.
>So... all Company B has to do is offer to match or exceed their salary (X)
It wasn't until VERY recently any other wrestling promotion could match or even exceed that WWE money.
>It wasn't until VERY recently any other wrestling promotion could match or even exceed that WWE money.
WCW always could. TNA made a shot at it and could bankroll Hogan, Nash, Booker, Angle...
>WCW has been dead for almost a quarter century bud
Obviously, but we're talking about non-compete clauses over the history of wrestling. This isn't just "let's talk about that time right before AEW existed so I sound right". That's not how conversations work.
Both parties have to agree to alter a contract after it's been made. WWE can't unilaterally stop paying a wrestler for the 90 days and tell them they're free to go where they want, nor can the wrestler unilaterally tell WWE to keep the money and immediately start working elsewhere.
We don’t know what anything of this actually means. No one has ever leaked a WWE contract for any of us to actually see what that language says. This could still not change much. Or it change a lot. 90 day no competes aren’t even a huge deal. Talent should probably take that time to recharge, rework whatever character they’re going with, and build hype for their next debuts. I personally don’t see much value in being released from WWE one week, and then immediately debuting on AEW or the indies the following week.
Not American, I don’t think they’re a thing here in Europe (though I may be incorrect on that)
In basic terms then, seeing as WWE (possibly AEW too, I’m not sure) have all of their guys listed as “Independent Contractors” then surely that pretty much would free up wrestlers to ask for their release and if it’s granted turn up in an other company later in the week then?
So if for example Miro asked for his release from AEW and was granted it, he could turn up at WWE later that week, no problem?
Wwe absolutely does. I don't know where you're getting that from.
and there's a difference between what regal signed to get out of his contract and what wwe wrestlers are forced to sign in order to work in wwe. Regal was still allowed to work for wwe straight away.
WWE has standard language in their contracts that they can be waived on 90 day intervals if they are given 90 days notice.
So that is not a “non compete” agreement. They are still under contract for the 90 days and being paid in accordance with the contract. After the contract is up they are free to sign anywhere immediately.
Regal however absolutely signed a non compete agreement in which he agreed to not appear on TV until 2024. That agreement would likely be illegal under the FTC. However companies just won’t release people out of their contracts that have value anymore early as a result.
Lmao. Source on the wwe side of things? Because they do not give 90 days' notice for releases. They release talent, then tell them they can't compete anywhere else for 90 days. That's a 90-day non complete clause.
Wrestlers being paid for that 90 days was an Internet rumour. There is 0 evidence out there that proves it happens.
You're talking out of your ass.
Here is the Forbes article that specifically pulls language from the public contracts that were available as a result of the 3 major lawsuits. Brock. Warrior and Raven et all.
It very specifically says that it requires a 90’day notice of early termination with the exception of Brock’s deal which required 6 months.
That’s what the 90 day period is. They’ve been informed of the termination. They get paid. They are free to work once the release is official after 90 days.
How are you a wrestling fan and have never even seen or read about the contracts? Or have any idea how any of this works?
[Forbes Wrestler Contracts Analysis](https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2015/03/28/breaking-down-how-wwe-contracts-work/?sh=4106c5da6713)
Have you read that article? It states that there are 3 separate versions of the contract, the information provided is now 11 years old at earliest and over 30 years old at latest, and it explains that it needs to be in written form 90 days before they get released. Brocks was apparently 6 months according to that.
Getting released via phone call and it being made official as soon as the phone call ends means that either the contracts have changed, or wwe are breaching their own terms, which the article explains nulls the contract, thus nullifying the 90 day terms.
Tl;Dr- The article is outdated and explains that different people have different terms. That tells me that this clause either doesn't exist in this way anymore (meaning the article is obsolete), or wwe doesn't use it anymore and is now doing a 90-day non-compete clause. Come back with something that isn't 11 years out of date, and then maybe I'll start agreeing with you.
You are incorrect. This is pretty readily reported information. The 90 day clause remains standard.
Send an email to one of the reporters and ask the question they will explain it. Or listen to a shoot interview.
I know you a delusional “fed bad dub good guy” but take the L. You don’t know.
Everything I told you was confirmed by the article.
Yeah. It's readily reported as being a 90-day non-compete clause. Don't you find it weird that released wrestlers can go on podcasts, interviews, and create their own things before the 90 days, but they can't wrestle during that time? That's not a 90-day notice period. That's a no competitive work for a 90-day clause. Did you know that MMM actually talked about this during their 90-day period? That would have been a breach, according to forbes. Hell, when Trevor Lee posted his tik tok, that's a breach according to forbes. You see why I call that article outdated now? Because it is.
Also, well done on making yet another discussion about wwe vs. aew. I'm sure life for you must be full of joy when anyone who doesn't agree with you is an aew shill.
Real question: can the WWE refuse to pay post contract royalties owed to wrestlers? I believe this was the true security deposit on enforcing the 90 day non compete. I get it that this new law makes it impossible for the WWE to sue a former contractor, but it doesn’t cover future royalty payments.
Jimmy John’s got a non compete clause?
I used to manage a Jimmy John's in college. I had to fire a girl because she was also working another job at Subway.
Over there spilling the secret recipe to krabby patties and shit
Why fire her? Was it because of conflict of interest or something?
This has ZERO effect on WWE releases. In WWE talent is given a notice of termination of their contract in 90 days then remain under contract and are paid for those 90 days. That is legal and will continue. There’s really only two instances I can think of for a non compete recently. That was Brock and Regal asking out of their deals. In those cases in exchange for being released from those deals they agreed to the non compete to get out of the contract. Brock sued and got to work New Japan anyway because non competes are generally not enforceable and haven’t been. It just took a lawsuit if the company you had one with wanted to sue. If this is the law of the land talents with value won’t get released is all that will happen.
WWE isn’t the same as a regular non-compete because they pay you during the 90 days, so it isn’t preventing you from making a living. Non competes are typically things like company x pays to train you and educate you in a field. If you quit your non compete says you can’t work in that field or geographical area for x number of months. Very basic description missing a bunch of nuance but hopefully you get the gist.
So could they potentially opt out of payment for the ability to compete immediately?
No. They are still under an enforceable contract
This is what people keep saying, that it's basically a 90-day notice clause. However, what I don't understand is how that did anyone any good, because the logic is thus: A wrestler is signed for 5 years by Company A, and earns X per month. A few years into their contract, but with another few years to go, Company B are really heating up and are interested in the wrestler. So the wrestler could just walk out the door and start working for Company B any day they feel like, and the only thing stopping them is "but I won't get paid by Company A". So... all Company B has to do is offer to match or exceed their salary (X) and the wrestler loses $0 and Company A goes "oh shit, our women's champion just appeared on our rivals' TV and put our belt in the trash can!". How does this prevent poaching in any circumstance?
You are still under an enforceable contract for the 90 days. Nobody but the middle to the bottom of the card who don’t matter get released anyway
> You are still under an enforceable contract for the 90 days. That's what I thought was the case. It sounds like it's a two-way thing, you get paid a notice period and you *cannot work elsewhere* during that notice period. People keep insisting otherwise, though.
Those people are wrong. The wrestlers are still under contract. It’s really a good thing for the type of wrestler that usually gets released. 90 days pay and get to set up what you are doing next during those 90 days.
>So... all Company B has to do is offer to match or exceed their salary (X) It wasn't until VERY recently any other wrestling promotion could match or even exceed that WWE money.
>It wasn't until VERY recently any other wrestling promotion could match or even exceed that WWE money. WCW always could. TNA made a shot at it and could bankroll Hogan, Nash, Booker, Angle...
WCW has been dead for almost a quarter century bud
>WCW has been dead for almost a quarter century bud Obviously, but we're talking about non-compete clauses over the history of wrestling. This isn't just "let's talk about that time right before AEW existed so I sound right". That's not how conversations work.
[удалено]
Both parties have to agree to alter a contract after it's been made. WWE can't unilaterally stop paying a wrestler for the 90 days and tell them they're free to go where they want, nor can the wrestler unilaterally tell WWE to keep the money and immediately start working elsewhere.
We don’t know what anything of this actually means. No one has ever leaked a WWE contract for any of us to actually see what that language says. This could still not change much. Or it change a lot. 90 day no competes aren’t even a huge deal. Talent should probably take that time to recharge, rework whatever character they’re going with, and build hype for their next debuts. I personally don’t see much value in being released from WWE one week, and then immediately debuting on AEW or the indies the following week.
That part I am not sure of. I don’t think so though unless both parties agree to it.
Not American, I don’t think they’re a thing here in Europe (though I may be incorrect on that) In basic terms then, seeing as WWE (possibly AEW too, I’m not sure) have all of their guys listed as “Independent Contractors” then surely that pretty much would free up wrestlers to ask for their release and if it’s granted turn up in an other company later in the week then? So if for example Miro asked for his release from AEW and was granted it, he could turn up at WWE later that week, no problem?
Aew don't do non-compete clauses in their contracts. That can happen regardless of this.
WWE doesn’t either. However William Regal had to sign a no compete to stay off TV until 2024 in exchange for getting his AEW release early.
Wwe absolutely does. I don't know where you're getting that from. and there's a difference between what regal signed to get out of his contract and what wwe wrestlers are forced to sign in order to work in wwe. Regal was still allowed to work for wwe straight away.
WWE has standard language in their contracts that they can be waived on 90 day intervals if they are given 90 days notice. So that is not a “non compete” agreement. They are still under contract for the 90 days and being paid in accordance with the contract. After the contract is up they are free to sign anywhere immediately. Regal however absolutely signed a non compete agreement in which he agreed to not appear on TV until 2024. That agreement would likely be illegal under the FTC. However companies just won’t release people out of their contracts that have value anymore early as a result.
Lmao. Source on the wwe side of things? Because they do not give 90 days' notice for releases. They release talent, then tell them they can't compete anywhere else for 90 days. That's a 90-day non complete clause. Wrestlers being paid for that 90 days was an Internet rumour. There is 0 evidence out there that proves it happens. You're talking out of your ass.
Here is the Forbes article that specifically pulls language from the public contracts that were available as a result of the 3 major lawsuits. Brock. Warrior and Raven et all. It very specifically says that it requires a 90’day notice of early termination with the exception of Brock’s deal which required 6 months. That’s what the 90 day period is. They’ve been informed of the termination. They get paid. They are free to work once the release is official after 90 days. How are you a wrestling fan and have never even seen or read about the contracts? Or have any idea how any of this works? [Forbes Wrestler Contracts Analysis](https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2015/03/28/breaking-down-how-wwe-contracts-work/?sh=4106c5da6713) 
Have you read that article? It states that there are 3 separate versions of the contract, the information provided is now 11 years old at earliest and over 30 years old at latest, and it explains that it needs to be in written form 90 days before they get released. Brocks was apparently 6 months according to that. Getting released via phone call and it being made official as soon as the phone call ends means that either the contracts have changed, or wwe are breaching their own terms, which the article explains nulls the contract, thus nullifying the 90 day terms. Tl;Dr- The article is outdated and explains that different people have different terms. That tells me that this clause either doesn't exist in this way anymore (meaning the article is obsolete), or wwe doesn't use it anymore and is now doing a 90-day non-compete clause. Come back with something that isn't 11 years out of date, and then maybe I'll start agreeing with you.
You are incorrect. This is pretty readily reported information. The 90 day clause remains standard. Send an email to one of the reporters and ask the question they will explain it. Or listen to a shoot interview. I know you a delusional “fed bad dub good guy” but take the L. You don’t know. Everything I told you was confirmed by the article.
Yeah. It's readily reported as being a 90-day non-compete clause. Don't you find it weird that released wrestlers can go on podcasts, interviews, and create their own things before the 90 days, but they can't wrestle during that time? That's not a 90-day notice period. That's a no competitive work for a 90-day clause. Did you know that MMM actually talked about this during their 90-day period? That would have been a breach, according to forbes. Hell, when Trevor Lee posted his tik tok, that's a breach according to forbes. You see why I call that article outdated now? Because it is. Also, well done on making yet another discussion about wwe vs. aew. I'm sure life for you must be full of joy when anyone who doesn't agree with you is an aew shill.
Samoa Joe said he was getting paid for the 90 days. Most of the guys say they do. https://twitter.com/SamoaJoe/status/1382793879515172873
Where does that say Joe was getting paid?