https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news...ng-noncompetes
This is rather interesting to see this going in place. I have always hated non compete clauses and honestly they are not always enforceable anyway depending on how they are worded.
As far as wrestling goes I wonder if this means WWE releases less people and just lets contracts run out or if it will just be a case by case basis.
It won't help those that were recently released by the WWE with the standard 90 day noncompete clause, as this won't be effective for 120 days
Wish someone would ban the FTC.
I'd rather they do something about the "Independent Contractor" sham, and require wrestling promotions to treat their employees as such. Employees deserve benefits and should be paid for overtime, especially when travel is a huge part of their requirements.
Yep. They should either be treated like legit employees like they do their office people or respect they're independent contractors. I did siding for a living 20 years ago and it made me really think wow, wrestlers get fucked over.
They really do. At least AEW, TNA, MLW, and NWA let people work the indies like actual independent contractors.
But it would be nice for people to just be treated as employees with benefits.
I know that WWE does take care of some stuff but not all.
Once vince sells the rest of his shares he is supposedly under a no compete for 1 year. I wonder if he waits 120 days so that he can be free to start another federation?
No matter what, in today's landscape this os awesome news for the performers. Imagine if a drew or Becky could just show up in aew or mjf in wwe hours after a contract is up.
If they wait for contract to be up there is no no compete clause. Only when they are released from their contract. That is why some guys were able to jump to AEW quickly they weren't released. Just waited for contracts to be up.
We all know when contracts are up so someone showing up unexpectedly is pretty much gone these days. CM Punk maybe was an expection.
I'm pretty sure Lex Luger set things in motion for Vince to start issuing non-compete clauses but some people don't have them at all. I think if your contract runs out and there's nothing in the contract about X amount of days before you can go somewhere else, they'll show up. Kind of like Edge for example, his WWE contract expired he was on AEW tv within a few days.
A big part of that though is those companies don't do house shows whereas the WWE does. Plus, WWE doesn't want you getting hurt at some GCW show. I'm almost positive these wrestlers still get paid during those 90 days as well but again, this is a business where visibility matters and if you're off mainstream tv for even a month sometimes people forget you exist and don't follow you to the smaller companies.Originally Posted by MTR
I think that by now we should've had something in place for these men and women for like a retirement plan or something. Maybe the issue there is wrestlers say "I'm retired" then a few months later they're back. Remember that Lloyds of London debacle?
I am glad the FTC did this and when you fire someone you should not be able to dictate their life after that.
I thought WWE had stopped doing actual non-compete clauses years ago?
I remember there being some clarification a few years ago that the 90 days 'no compete' is actually a 90 day notice period.
As I understand it, talent can currently leave at any time, but they have to 'buy out' the remainder of their contract.
Nobody does that because three months of pay to stay home and rest is one of the few upsides to them being let go.
It'll be interesting to see how it plays out, but in all honesty, I don't think this will have any impact on the wrestling industry, or at least not on WWE specifically.
Nope WWE still has non compete clauses. Jinder and the others recently released can't work for others for 90 days. They get paid but they can't work. I think they can get permission to do a non-televised show during the 90 days but other than that nope. If this was already in affect I would bet we could see Jinder or Cameron Grimes on TNA or AEW at any point but since it is not in affect yet they have to sit for 90 days.
I think it will affect things. They may just sit people at home and let contracts run out instead of releasing early. They kind of already did that depending on the person. I am not expecting a major impact but WWE will probably handle releases differently.
Except that is not a non-compete clause.
A non-compete clause, specifically prohibits where someone can work, after their term of employment has ended with their current employer.
Jinder and the others cannot work for another company for 90 days, because they are still under contract with WWE for those 90 days.
---
If / when WWE decides to let someone go, they aren't fired immediately and given a 90 day non compete clause.
They are instead given notice that their employment will be finished in 90 days, but they are still WWE employees for the remainder of that notice period and will continue to be paid their downside guarantee (as a minimum).
On the other hand though, if there is someone whos contract is due to expire, like Drew McIntyre for example, that would work differently.
Say Drew hadn't re-signed and his contract expired at the end of April. He wouldn't have to abide by a non-compete clause and could just turn up in AEW ton the first of May, as his contractual obligations to his former employer would have already ended.
Practically, there may be very little difference in how a 90 day notice period and a 90 day non-compete clause function from our point of view, but the fact that the wrestlers are still receiving their pay for the three months alone sets it apart from a non-compete clause.
---
There was a notable shift in language used around releases starting a few years ago, and they seemed to lean into the concept of it as a notice period rather than a non-compete, i suspect largely because they were aware that something like this was being looked at by the FTC.
In the long term, I'd guess that the WWE will change very little about their firing process and will argue that they don't fall under the FTC ruling, as they are just giving the employee and 90 notice period.
Sidenote, Het MTR, good to seeya again.
That makes sense since they are still getting paid. Just wording and what not I guess.
Nice to see you as well
Hang on,
I know I've been away for a while, but since when do internet arguments resolve with reason and mutual understanding?
Shouldn't we be throwing chairs and calling each other names by this point?
--
Seriously though, I'm very curious to see how this all plays out.
I remember there being several news reports over the last few years that specified that the releases were being given a 90 day notice instead of a 90 day non-compete.
I'd be very surprised if that wasn't around the time that the FTC started looking at the whole issue of non-competes.
Clearly if the last few year in pro wrestling has taught us anything is that the last thing Vinnie Mac wanted was any attention from federal agencies!
My wife's job had them sign an agreement that they wouldn't quit and get employed in the same line of work within a 15 mile radius, Im guessing to avoid secrets etc. being stolen.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote