For years, fans and wrestlers alike have treated WWEs 90-day non-compete clause as a standard part of contract exits. But according to former WWE Superstar and lawyer David Otunga, that clause doesnt technically exist at least not in writing.
Speaking with Ariel Helwani on November 19, Otunga broke down what he discovered while reviewing WWE contracts and what he found completely changes the narrative.
Thats right the 90-day non-compete fans always talk about? Its not actually in the contract. Its just been WWEs usual practice to release talent and hold them for 90 days. But Otunga made it clear that this timeline is not guaranteed.
This came up in a conversation about Andrade El Idolo, who made a surprise AEW appearance after his WWE release only to disappear after reports of a cease and desist from WWE. According to Otunga, Andrades contract allowed WWE to enforce a full one-year ban, which theyre doing now without pay something Otunga had never seen before.
And while Otunga believes Andrade could win if he challenged it in court, the cost and effort are steep.
WWEs contracts also lock talent into arbitration and keep disputes out of public courts making it even harder for talent to fight back. But now that the language is getting attention, wrestlers and legal experts are starting to ask whether WWE can continue this approach under the new TKO regime.
If theres no written 90-day clause, and WWE can enforce a one-year non-compete at will, every wrestler under contract could be one decision away from a full year on the shelf.
Should WWE be allowed to enforce one-year bans without pay if its not a fixed standard? Is this fair to talent or a massive overreach? Sound off in the comments and tell us what you think about WWEs contract game.
Please credit Ringside News if you use the above transcript in your publication.
