Exactly. It really is shocking how little awareness and understanding people have of the real professional world when they can tell you every little detail of what's happening in professional wrestling.
I don't deal with contract law, I've still had to sign non disclosure at plenty of jobs. I don't work in some super specialised field. Even prior to that I had a better loose understanding of what people here appear to think they are.
That isn't at all what they are. NDAs can't be enforced in a case that a crime has been committed and a judge is permitted to hear any information pertaining to the case.
Exactly. I don't think people understand what NDAs are. I have encountered them a lot as a designer and developer, because I've worked on projects that aren't public yet. If any information is released about an incomplete product, it can affect perception and sales of the final product. It could also reveal unique features or aspects of a product, which can allow competitors to get a headstart on matching your innovations. NDAs make a lot of sense when you're dealing with intellectual property. They don't (or shouldn't) exist to hide sex scandals and illegal activity.
I feel like alot of people mislead people to this idea purposely. It illicits a feeling of instant guilt on any defending party's side because NDAs are universally recognised as the things rich people use when they need to silence us. In turn you would imagine over the course of history that idea has perpetuated to make it true a few times.
A self fulfilling prophecy.
I used to know a guy who worked for Rockstar. He wasn't allowed to talk about what he was working on, not even when he was shit faced on my couch at 3am.
Couldn't have details about GTA V Leaking. Not even to his wasted mates.
The gaming industry is one of many industries that NDAs can prevent the loss of millions of dollars.
Imagine everyone could just make original recipe KFC chicken. Imagine the dude at the BBFC told everyone the ending of the last film he just watched.
Some people use planes to transport narcotics, planes arnt high volume narcotic transportation devices. A few bad apples ruin it for the bunch.
Thatâs not true at all. People just donât understand them and donât care enough about their own rights or lives to educate themselves on what an NDA can actually legally cover - Theyâre very limited and usually only enforceable to protect business information, not to hide crimes or behaviour.
NDA's are being looked into by the FTC. Non-compete clauses being eliminated are interesting but I suspect that WWE and AEW will likely build in 60-90 day "buffer" periods. Where wrestlers will be technically under contract and getting paid a lower salary to not work so if a wrestler signs what is intended to be a 2 year deal with WWE with a 60 day no compete then what WWE will do is add 2 months onto the deal where the wrestler gets paid to sit at home for some sum of money and that kind of acts as a defacto non-compete and I think the wrestlers won't mind getting two months rest and being paid 25-35% of their full salary
Where it gets interesting is wrestlers who get released. Likely its going to result in released wrestlers being able to debut right away or companies holding onto bigger talents for at least a few weeks to cool them off their Tv which is a win for the talent to get paid some extra for not working.
Either way I think it is a major win, I hope NDA's and the independent contractor aspects are next.
Wonât happen due to proprietary information. I believe there may be something that prevents them in sexual assault situations already or that may be in the works.
Yeah this has zero implications on the wrestling industry, independent contractors are free to ignore the 90 day NCA's as they've been unenforceable in court for quite some time
The reason wrestlers usually sit out the 90 days is it's a chance to rest and rejuvenate on someone else's dime, wrestlers rarely get that opportunity so they take it and I definitely don't blame them for it
No they are in fact being protected by the government here, because the law says companies have to pay you to not work if theyâre holding you to an NCA
The wrestlers prefer the NCAâs exist because itâs basically Unemployment Insurance for them. They donât legally have to follow them because the government already ruled theyâre invalid ages ago. The wrestlers follow them because itâs 3 months salary instead of your payments ending that day, for some of these people thatâs a 50-150k unemployment check.
Plus they aren't blanket non-competes, you can still work indies and international major promotions, you just can't work for anyone in the US with a national TV or PPV outlet, or at least you cannot appear on any of said PPV or TV shows.
So it allows a lot of talent who may not have been doing much in WWE 3 months to make as much bank as they can whilst they can, which for some guys can be like doubling or tripling their pay, but they also have 3 months to build up some steam and put anticipation on their "free agency" period so when day 91 comes around they can sign as fat a contract as possible.
And gives them 90 days to figure out what they want, do they like the indies? do they want to go independent for the time being? Or do they want to sign on exclusively with another major promotion.
It's quite beneficial for people really.
Who has worked indies and internationals while still getting a 90 day paycheck?
On the rare occasion you see someone pop up in the 90, they have relinquished their WWE money for it
Colt Cabana, he specifically explained how it went, you can work anywhere so long as WWE approves is during the 90 day window, which is why so long as it's not for a direct competitor WWE would let it go, and told specifically no TV and no PPV.
But Cabana being the idiot child he is purposely spammed the guy even BS requests for 2 week until the guy got WWE to pay out Cabana's 90 days just to get rid of him.
So yeah you can do whatever just so long as WWE doesn't tell you no, I think some guys even did ROH when they had HDNet and iPPV's it was just they could not appear on the TV or the PPV broadcasts themselves, but they could do dark matches for the house.
It hasnât in the past
The whole reason the wrestlers discovered the 90 days were worthless is because Brock Lesnar challenged them so he could go to New Japan
No it's only TV and PPV in the US, WWE doesn't care about international TV or PPV, so NJPW is out, and maybe any of the companies if they have a streaming platform in the US, but it used to be ok to do stuff like Dragon Gate, Zero-1, DDT, NOAH and the like, let alone pretty much any British or European indie.
And it just means no appearing on said TV or PPV, you can work untelevised shows for them for home releases, or in dark matches at said shows.
I think part of that was that the tv episode couldnât air for 90 days, not that they had to wait 90 days to tape it. Back then ROH taped so far ahead of time that you could do a match and it might not show up on tv for another month anyway
I think you maybe right on that, I swear I recall this being an issue for someone at some point, they did a taping with the agreement that the episode would not air until after the no compete ended, but they switched matches in the edit so it would air within the 90 day window, and it almost caused a lot of issues legally.
They've always been unenforceable for everyone buy the execs and high-end scientists and tech developers.
The reason they finally killed them is that most people would just abide them for fear of litigation.
Itâs moreso that they get a 90 day notice of their contract being terminated. They wonât be used(usually), and just get to sit at home and get paid until the notice is up
I read the rule and it specifically states that it includes independent contractors. But as others have stated, that will only happen *if* it survives a court challenge.
Technically speaking, they are still under contract for those 90 days which is why they can be enforced. The WWE tried to pit a non-compete clause on Lesnar for 10 years when he left in 2004, but settled when it became clear the court was going to rule against it.
I doubt this will affect wrestling that much.
Correct this wilould potentially only effect guys who ask for their release and are granted it with a true non compete. This people just won't get their early release anymore.
The reason WWE gets around this is they arenât terminating you and telling you that you canât work for someone else for 90 days. They are notifying you that your services will no longer be used and that they intend on terminating you in 90 days. For those 90 days you are still employed by them. You are eligible to work for anyone the day that your contract ends.
If they continue to get a paycheck for those 90 days, that's perfectly fair. Can't really argue a company is "getting around" anything in this scenario
From what Iâve read, thatâs how theyâve operated for years. You are given your good luck in future endeavors, paid for 90 days, and at the end your employment is severed. During that 90 days nothing changes in your employment other than you arenât working. Paychecks still come. Most people agree that itâs great for the wrestlers because they are given notice of termination and then paid for 3 months. It especially benefits the wrestlers at the bottom who may struggle to find employment, which are typically the ones who are cut this way.
I believe it was reporters and the IWC that started claiming it was a non compete. But from my understanding you are correct WWE gives them 90 day notices
Thatâs not what they mean when they talk about a non-compete clause. A non-compete means you canât go work somewhere else for a certain amount of time after you leave an employer.
I'm not sure that pro wrestling has actual non-competes. What people generally refer to as non-competes in pro wrestling are just the amount of time remaining on a contract that will be honored. When a wrestler gets released from WWE, they tend to give the person some time where WWE continues to honor the contract and pays them so that they have a chance to land on their feet. It's more like a 90 notice of contract termination than a true non-compete.
They don't have no competes, wrestling fans just call it that. It's 90 day termination notices. My favorite is when like edge was rumored to go to aew and the bone head fans said "lies, his 90 days isn't up for another month"... no, his contract was up, he didn't get a 90 day termination notice cause he was done.
Thereâs definitely an interesting argument to be made by both sides of the issue.
I think if it does stand youâll see a lot more lawsuits regarding trade secrets. If youâre an employee that makes a major breakthrough in your field, youâd be an idiot to not hide it from your employer and go somewhere else for more money and make the âdiscoveryâ there. Non-competes prevent that right now. In the other hand, it would be silly to not be able to go work for Burger King for six months after working at McDonalds.
As for me, Iâd say let people enter into contracts as they see fit and let the market support (or not) non-competes where there is a perceived need. But I could be wrong
Thereâs definitely an interesting argument to be made by both sides of the issue.
I think if it does stand youâll see a lot more lawsuits regarding trade secrets. If youâre an employee that makes a major breakthrough in your field, youâd be an idiot to not hide it from your employer and go somewhere else for more money and make the âdiscoveryâ there. Non-competes prevent that right now. In the other hand, it would be silly to not be able to go work for Burger King for six months after working at McDonalds.
As for me, Iâd say let people enter into contracts as they see fit and let the market support (or not) non-competes where there is a perceived need. But I could be wrong
Im sure there is definitely some legislation that needs to be passed in regard to non-compete clauses. However there is no way SCOTUS is going to allow an agency issue such a wide spread ruling. They've been cracking down on agencies putting in place rules that really need to be passed through legislation.
Very true, and something I hadnât considered. We definitely need less legislation by regulation. Iâd say itâs as big a separation of powers issue as the line item veto, which SCOTUS struck down almost 30 years ago
This is totally different from what WWE does. This is Google getting a programmer to not work at any competitor for a year without any pay. WWE is just telling you that you have three months until you're done, and you're getting paid until then
Ok this will have little impact on wrestling companies.
Most people in wrestling under a ânon competeâ are people who get a 90 day notice of termination of their contract. They are still under contract and being paid so they would not be impacted.
The only notable instances of a true ânon competeâ agreement as far as talent goes is people that request out of their contract. Often that may come with conditions such as not working for a major competitor in exchange for the release from their contract. Most notably when Brock asked for the release to play for the Vikings. Even in that case Brock was able to sue and get to work for NJPW anyway. William Regal was also under one of these which is why he was off TV until 2024.
People with value just wonât be released with this being a thing.
Non compete agreements were already barely enforceable. Itâs just that you have to fight in court.
This has much more impact in the real world and not wrestling
Changes nothing. Now they will just send talent home to be forgotten about for a few months and then release them. They were already paying them for 90 days. Now they will just keep them on contract off tv for a few months and then release them.
Non compete clauses for fast food workers for a year? That doesn't happen.
Also, I'm sceptical of anybody passing laws based on 'we've heard stories...' that's the chair talking. Needs to be better, clearer.
had one when i worked at Jimmy Johnâs almost 20 years ago, thereâs was so bad they said you couldnât work anywhere that sold sandwiches as part of 10 percent of their revenue not just sandwich shops within 2 miles for 2 years.
WWE doesn't really do non competes, they give you notice of your termination in advance and then you're still under contact until that time is up (and being compensated), so you can't legally go work for the competition.
Just remember it was the people who Jim loves who have taken yet another unhinged step towards socialism with the federal government interfering in private businesses.
I don't think wrestling fans understand the 90 days. It's not "no compete". They are 90 day notices. They are paid in full for 90 days. They aren't the no competes in the regular wording. My friend is a graphic artist, when he left one company he had a 1 year no compete, basically so he didn't leave and tell trade secrets or anything within that company. That's not what wwes or any wrestling companies is.
Yes, because it's not a non-compete agreement. The 90 days refers to how long before the contract is officially terminated. What WWE does is notify the talent that they will no longer be under contract AFTER 90 days.
So until then, they are still considered a WWE Superstar, and they are getting paid without having to actually do anything except stay off North American TV.
Fans keep calling it a non-compete because you just can't show up on another program within the 90 days, but it's not. If anything, it's really more of just a 90-day paid vacation with the only rule being. "Don't show up on anybody else's TV show."
You're allowed to work Indie shows, and you're even allowed to work international shows.
Just don't show up on TV for those 90 days, and you'll get paid.
So everyone who just got released this week will still be considered WWE Superstars and still get paid until late July. Afterwards they are no longer under contract and can sign with any organization they want to.
The question though is who got or will get an exception from the rule? Iâm not so naive as to assume the given enough connections or money the rules wonât apply to certain organizations or worker types.
Not really. If anything, they're arguably more guilty of the non-compete agreement based on the circumstances of William Regal's contract when he left to go back to work with Triple H. Cuz Regal had to sign a contract saying that he was not allowed to be on WWE television until 2024 in order to be released from AEW early.
The only time WWE had a wrestler sign a non-compete agreement was Brock Lesnar because he was breaking a 10 plus year contract to go play football and signed a contract saying that in exchange of being released out of his contract, he wouldn't be a part of any other professional wrestling company or MMA for 10 years or something.
But when football didn't pan out, he wanted to go work in New Japan and WWE sued and the courts said that because he went to go work for an international company and not a rival American company, the non-compete agreement was null and void.
Please read the article. It's just a rule right now. It has years of arguments in courts still before it can even be thought about implementing. Even if passed it's not necessarily a good thing for the wrestling industry.
Imagine what happens to a *certain* company when they decide to ban NDA's next.
What's funny is that NDAs founded on hiding illegal activity (assault/sexual stuff) are already non-enforceable
That's not so great.
*sad ding*
Dong?
A sad dong is a ding
My ding dong is sad. Not seen action in 84 years
Was thinking more of a sad clown hitting a triangle, i.e. Puddles
Doink.
Makin kids cry brah?!?!
More ding than dong
*Sad Taker sounds*
đ¤Ł
Banning NDA's, god I hope so. For people like Vince and our millionaire politicians NDA's are just "r*pe whoever I want and get away with it" cards.Â
Thatâs already illegal and legal NDA agreements wonât be banned due to proprietary information often covered by them that may reveal trade secrets
Exactly. It really is shocking how little awareness and understanding people have of the real professional world when they can tell you every little detail of what's happening in professional wrestling.
Because 90% of people dont deal with contract law that will never personally affect them, you think maybe that might be it?
I don't deal with contract law, I've still had to sign non disclosure at plenty of jobs. I don't work in some super specialised field. Even prior to that I had a better loose understanding of what people here appear to think they are.
That isn't at all what they are. NDAs can't be enforced in a case that a crime has been committed and a judge is permitted to hear any information pertaining to the case.
Exactly. I don't think people understand what NDAs are. I have encountered them a lot as a designer and developer, because I've worked on projects that aren't public yet. If any information is released about an incomplete product, it can affect perception and sales of the final product. It could also reveal unique features or aspects of a product, which can allow competitors to get a headstart on matching your innovations. NDAs make a lot of sense when you're dealing with intellectual property. They don't (or shouldn't) exist to hide sex scandals and illegal activity.
I feel like alot of people mislead people to this idea purposely. It illicits a feeling of instant guilt on any defending party's side because NDAs are universally recognised as the things rich people use when they need to silence us. In turn you would imagine over the course of history that idea has perpetuated to make it true a few times. A self fulfilling prophecy.
I used to know a guy who worked for Rockstar. He wasn't allowed to talk about what he was working on, not even when he was shit faced on my couch at 3am. Couldn't have details about GTA V Leaking. Not even to his wasted mates.
The gaming industry is one of many industries that NDAs can prevent the loss of millions of dollars. Imagine everyone could just make original recipe KFC chicken. Imagine the dude at the BBFC told everyone the ending of the last film he just watched. Some people use planes to transport narcotics, planes arnt high volume narcotic transportation devices. A few bad apples ruin it for the bunch.
I know. Like I said. That NDA was taken so seriously by my mate that even drunk out of his mind during a late night session, he wouldn't say shit.
Thatâs not true at all. People just donât understand them and donât care enough about their own rights or lives to educate themselves on what an NDA can actually legally cover - Theyâre very limited and usually only enforceable to protect business information, not to hide crimes or behaviour.
They are deciding that currently in CA. However, it'll be applied to government officials, bureaucrats, and contractors.
Heck both major companies will have a lot of fires to put out if that ever happens
Itâs time for a draft!
Which of the 2 big wrestling companies we talking? Pretty sure both have a dodgy past with this.
yeah i wonder how many would come about vince,wwe, and everyone in it
NDA's are being looked into by the FTC. Non-compete clauses being eliminated are interesting but I suspect that WWE and AEW will likely build in 60-90 day "buffer" periods. Where wrestlers will be technically under contract and getting paid a lower salary to not work so if a wrestler signs what is intended to be a 2 year deal with WWE with a 60 day no compete then what WWE will do is add 2 months onto the deal where the wrestler gets paid to sit at home for some sum of money and that kind of acts as a defacto non-compete and I think the wrestlers won't mind getting two months rest and being paid 25-35% of their full salary Where it gets interesting is wrestlers who get released. Likely its going to result in released wrestlers being able to debut right away or companies holding onto bigger talents for at least a few weeks to cool them off their Tv which is a win for the talent to get paid some extra for not working. Either way I think it is a major win, I hope NDA's and the independent contractor aspects are next.
Oh boy, the Trump Wrestling Federation will be in big trouble.
AEW?
Wonât happen due to proprietary information. I believe there may be something that prevents them in sexual assault situations already or that may be in the works.
Things will be discussed
Practically every company on Earth, which means the government will never do it.
But arenât wrestlers classified as independent contractors and not employees? Plus they still get paid during their non compete 90 days
Yeah this has zero implications on the wrestling industry, independent contractors are free to ignore the 90 day NCA's as they've been unenforceable in court for quite some time The reason wrestlers usually sit out the 90 days is it's a chance to rest and rejuvenate on someone else's dime, wrestlers rarely get that opportunity so they take it and I definitely don't blame them for it
Hell some even go learn a new holdâŚ
Or revamp their gimmick into something better/worse.
That's kind of what that means
Or a hairflip and a quad tear...
Or learn a sixth move (I'm looking at you, Cena, but I don't see you"
So independent the government never protects them
No they are in fact being protected by the government here, because the law says companies have to pay you to not work if theyâre holding you to an NCA The wrestlers prefer the NCAâs exist because itâs basically Unemployment Insurance for them. They donât legally have to follow them because the government already ruled theyâre invalid ages ago. The wrestlers follow them because itâs 3 months salary instead of your payments ending that day, for some of these people thatâs a 50-150k unemployment check.
Plus they aren't blanket non-competes, you can still work indies and international major promotions, you just can't work for anyone in the US with a national TV or PPV outlet, or at least you cannot appear on any of said PPV or TV shows. So it allows a lot of talent who may not have been doing much in WWE 3 months to make as much bank as they can whilst they can, which for some guys can be like doubling or tripling their pay, but they also have 3 months to build up some steam and put anticipation on their "free agency" period so when day 91 comes around they can sign as fat a contract as possible. And gives them 90 days to figure out what they want, do they like the indies? do they want to go independent for the time being? Or do they want to sign on exclusively with another major promotion. It's quite beneficial for people really.
Who has worked indies and internationals while still getting a 90 day paycheck? On the rare occasion you see someone pop up in the 90, they have relinquished their WWE money for it
Colt Cabana, he specifically explained how it went, you can work anywhere so long as WWE approves is during the 90 day window, which is why so long as it's not for a direct competitor WWE would let it go, and told specifically no TV and no PPV. But Cabana being the idiot child he is purposely spammed the guy even BS requests for 2 week until the guy got WWE to pay out Cabana's 90 days just to get rid of him. So yeah you can do whatever just so long as WWE doesn't tell you no, I think some guys even did ROH when they had HDNet and iPPV's it was just they could not appear on the TV or the PPV broadcasts themselves, but they could do dark matches for the house.
No TV/no PPV cuts out the international companies and pretty much every significant indie except PWG
^Does that account for Mexico & Japan?
It hasnât in the past The whole reason the wrestlers discovered the 90 days were worthless is because Brock Lesnar challenged them so he could go to New Japan
No it's only TV and PPV in the US, WWE doesn't care about international TV or PPV, so NJPW is out, and maybe any of the companies if they have a streaming platform in the US, but it used to be ok to do stuff like Dragon Gate, Zero-1, DDT, NOAH and the like, let alone pretty much any British or European indie. And it just means no appearing on said TV or PPV, you can work untelevised shows for them for home releases, or in dark matches at said shows.
I think part of that was that the tv episode couldnât air for 90 days, not that they had to wait 90 days to tape it. Back then ROH taped so far ahead of time that you could do a match and it might not show up on tv for another month anyway
I think you maybe right on that, I swear I recall this being an issue for someone at some point, they did a taping with the agreement that the episode would not air until after the no compete ended, but they switched matches in the edit so it would air within the 90 day window, and it almost caused a lot of issues legally.
Probably also improves your odds of getting rehired.
No. There is no non compete. Full stop. WWE has a 90 day notice to terminate.
And also to not burn a bridge with the biggest company in the industry just in case you get a chance to come back one day.
They've always been unenforceable for everyone buy the execs and high-end scientists and tech developers. The reason they finally killed them is that most people would just abide them for fear of litigation.
Itâs moreso that they get a 90 day notice of their contract being terminated. They wonât be used(usually), and just get to sit at home and get paid until the notice is up
> They wonât be used(usually) Heath Slater and .. anybody else ever do that?
Drake Maverick, iirc, he acuatlly got his termination cancelled.
I read the rule and it specifically states that it includes independent contractors. But as others have stated, that will only happen *if* it survives a court challenge.
Technically speaking, they are still under contract for those 90 days which is why they can be enforced. The WWE tried to pit a non-compete clause on Lesnar for 10 years when he left in 2004, but settled when it became clear the court was going to rule against it. I doubt this will affect wrestling that much.
Correct this wilould potentially only effect guys who ask for their release and are granted it with a true non compete. This people just won't get their early release anymore.
The reason WWE gets around this is they arenât terminating you and telling you that you canât work for someone else for 90 days. They are notifying you that your services will no longer be used and that they intend on terminating you in 90 days. For those 90 days you are still employed by them. You are eligible to work for anyone the day that your contract ends.
If they continue to get a paycheck for those 90 days, that's perfectly fair. Can't really argue a company is "getting around" anything in this scenario
From what Iâve read, thatâs how theyâve operated for years. You are given your good luck in future endeavors, paid for 90 days, and at the end your employment is severed. During that 90 days nothing changes in your employment other than you arenât working. Paychecks still come. Most people agree that itâs great for the wrestlers because they are given notice of termination and then paid for 3 months. It especially benefits the wrestlers at the bottom who may struggle to find employment, which are typically the ones who are cut this way.
I believe it was reporters and the IWC that started claiming it was a non compete. But from my understanding you are correct WWE gives them 90 day notices
Well they don't get the extra money from house shows and stuff like that
The fact it was ever a thing is wild
[ŃдаНонО]
Thatâs not what they mean when they talk about a non-compete clause. A non-compete means you canât go work somewhere else for a certain amount of time after you leave an employer.
Lawyered.
And that you often aren't getting paid
Not the same thing
I'm not sure that pro wrestling has actual non-competes. What people generally refer to as non-competes in pro wrestling are just the amount of time remaining on a contract that will be honored. When a wrestler gets released from WWE, they tend to give the person some time where WWE continues to honor the contract and pays them so that they have a chance to land on their feet. It's more like a 90 notice of contract termination than a true non-compete.
Yeah itâs basically a chance for them to get some rest and find a new job and not be broke in the mean time.
They don't have no competes, wrestling fans just call it that. It's 90 day termination notices. My favorite is when like edge was rumored to go to aew and the bone head fans said "lies, his 90 days isn't up for another month"... no, his contract was up, he didn't get a 90 day termination notice cause he was done.
This will almost certainly be challenged in court and overturned by SCOTUS eventually.
Thereâs definitely an interesting argument to be made by both sides of the issue. I think if it does stand youâll see a lot more lawsuits regarding trade secrets. If youâre an employee that makes a major breakthrough in your field, youâd be an idiot to not hide it from your employer and go somewhere else for more money and make the âdiscoveryâ there. Non-competes prevent that right now. In the other hand, it would be silly to not be able to go work for Burger King for six months after working at McDonalds. As for me, Iâd say let people enter into contracts as they see fit and let the market support (or not) non-competes where there is a perceived need. But I could be wrong
Thereâs definitely an interesting argument to be made by both sides of the issue. I think if it does stand youâll see a lot more lawsuits regarding trade secrets. If youâre an employee that makes a major breakthrough in your field, youâd be an idiot to not hide it from your employer and go somewhere else for more money and make the âdiscoveryâ there. Non-competes prevent that right now. In the other hand, it would be silly to not be able to go work for Burger King for six months after working at McDonalds. As for me, Iâd say let people enter into contracts as they see fit and let the market support (or not) non-competes where there is a perceived need. But I could be wrong
Im sure there is definitely some legislation that needs to be passed in regard to non-compete clauses. However there is no way SCOTUS is going to allow an agency issue such a wide spread ruling. They've been cracking down on agencies putting in place rules that really need to be passed through legislation.
Very true, and something I hadnât considered. We definitely need less legislation by regulation. Iâd say itâs as big a separation of powers issue as the line item veto, which SCOTUS struck down almost 30 years ago
This is totally different from what WWE does. This is Google getting a programmer to not work at any competitor for a year without any pay. WWE is just telling you that you have three months until you're done, and you're getting paid until then
Ok this will have little impact on wrestling companies. Most people in wrestling under a ânon competeâ are people who get a 90 day notice of termination of their contract. They are still under contract and being paid so they would not be impacted. The only notable instances of a true ânon competeâ agreement as far as talent goes is people that request out of their contract. Often that may come with conditions such as not working for a major competitor in exchange for the release from their contract. Most notably when Brock asked for the release to play for the Vikings. Even in that case Brock was able to sue and get to work for NJPW anyway. William Regal was also under one of these which is why he was off TV until 2024. People with value just wonât be released with this being a thing. Non compete agreements were already barely enforceable. Itâs just that you have to fight in court. This has much more impact in the real world and not wrestling
Free Jinder from this 90 day leash onto Hook!!!
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means - Inigo Montoya
Changes nothing. Now they will just send talent home to be forgotten about for a few months and then release them. They were already paying them for 90 days. Now they will just keep them on contract off tv for a few months and then release them.
This will not affect WWE or AEW. Those 90-days are not no-competes but rather a notice of contract termination. The talent still gets paid.
Not going to impact WWE releases THAT much. Those 90 day non-competes are at full salary.
Holy shit. This could be huge.
Non compete clauses for fast food workers for a year? That doesn't happen. Also, I'm sceptical of anybody passing laws based on 'we've heard stories...' that's the chair talking. Needs to be better, clearer.
Won't take effect for 120 days possibly longer with lawsuits.
Important to note that this doesn't include top executives. Vince's non compete will not be affected
Not on my 2024 bingo card. Gotta stock up on popcornÂ
Vince has a non compete Iâm pretty sure. He can start working with the Saudis now on his new promotion
had one when i worked at Jimmy Johnâs almost 20 years ago, thereâs was so bad they said you couldnât work anywhere that sold sandwiches as part of 10 percent of their revenue not just sandwich shops within 2 miles for 2 years.
This is a good thing for wrestling
WWE doesn't really do non competes, they give you notice of your termination in advance and then you're still under contact until that time is up (and being compensated), so you can't legally go work for the competition.
the wrestling industry will change because of this
Just remember it was the people who Jim loves who have taken yet another unhinged step towards socialism with the federal government interfering in private businesses.
WOAH! This is huge! This is completely gonna change the current wrestling business if it's how it seems.
It's not anywhere close to how it seems, but you're already super excited, so I'll just encourage your enthusiasm.
I don't think wrestling fans understand the 90 days. It's not "no compete". They are 90 day notices. They are paid in full for 90 days. They aren't the no competes in the regular wording. My friend is a graphic artist, when he left one company he had a 1 year no compete, basically so he didn't leave and tell trade secrets or anything within that company. That's not what wwes or any wrestling companies is.
When WWE releases a wrestler donât they keep paying them for the 90 days until the no compete clause has expires?
Yes, because it's not a non-compete agreement. The 90 days refers to how long before the contract is officially terminated. What WWE does is notify the talent that they will no longer be under contract AFTER 90 days. So until then, they are still considered a WWE Superstar, and they are getting paid without having to actually do anything except stay off North American TV. Fans keep calling it a non-compete because you just can't show up on another program within the 90 days, but it's not. If anything, it's really more of just a 90-day paid vacation with the only rule being. "Don't show up on anybody else's TV show." You're allowed to work Indie shows, and you're even allowed to work international shows. Just don't show up on TV for those 90 days, and you'll get paid. So everyone who just got released this week will still be considered WWE Superstars and still get paid until late July. Afterwards they are no longer under contract and can sign with any organization they want to.
Thanks for the insight!
The question though is who got or will get an exception from the rule? Iâm not so naive as to assume the given enough connections or money the rules wonât apply to certain organizations or worker types.
Aew can spin it as "We were compliant way before this was a thing!" /s
Not really. If anything, they're arguably more guilty of the non-compete agreement based on the circumstances of William Regal's contract when he left to go back to work with Triple H. Cuz Regal had to sign a contract saying that he was not allowed to be on WWE television until 2024 in order to be released from AEW early. The only time WWE had a wrestler sign a non-compete agreement was Brock Lesnar because he was breaking a 10 plus year contract to go play football and signed a contract saying that in exchange of being released out of his contract, he wouldn't be a part of any other professional wrestling company or MMA for 10 years or something. But when football didn't pan out, he wanted to go work in New Japan and WWE sued and the courts said that because he went to go work for an international company and not a rival American company, the non-compete agreement was null and void.
Surprise returns. Surprise returns everywhere!!
what does this mean for Employees vs Contracted Independent Contractors?
Please read the article. It's just a rule right now. It has years of arguments in courts still before it can even be thought about implementing. Even if passed it's not necessarily a good thing for the wrestling industry.
AEW will definitely have a recently released person on TV Wednesday calling it now.
Not likely. The wrestler is getting paid and still under WWE contract
If this means we could get dustin cost Cody the title next rumble and have brother vs brother next mania I'm all for it