New particulars about WWE’s TKO-era contracts are portray a way more aggressive image of how the corporate plans to regulate expertise motion transferring ahead — and in line with wrestling lawyer Mike Dawkins, among the language might grow to be an enormous authorized struggle someday.
The dialog round WWE’s new contract construction first started again in October 2025 when Bryan Alvarez revealed on Wrestling Observer Radio that TKO-era offers already included a lot harsher non-compete language than followers have been used to.
On the time, Alvarez defined that newer WWE contracts included a one-year non-compete clause tied particularly to expertise being fired for trigger or breach. Whereas discussing the problem, Alvarez pressured this was not uncommon contract language buried in remoted offers.
“We’ve it confirmed via a number of sources that the brand new TKO contracts have a clause the place in case you are fired, there’s a one-year non-compete. The older contracts had this but it surely’s commonplace now. That is the hold-up involving Andrade. Very skeptical this may maintain up in a authorized battle, but it surely’s within the contracts.”
Talking on the 83 Weeks podcast, wrestling lawyer Mike Dawkins broke down a number of new clauses allegedly showing in WWE contracts beneath TKO — and a few of them might dramatically restrict how freely wrestlers negotiate with AEW, TNA, GCW, or anyone else.
Dawkins first centered on what he described as a brand new “unique negotiation interval” constructed into contracts. In response to him, wrestlers are actually being blocked from even discussing their future with one other firm through the ultimate 9 months of their offers. As Dawkins defined it, the restriction doesn’t simply cease expertise from signing elsewhere — it stops them from getting ready for all times after WWE solely.
“It’s now being explicitly written into contracts that the wrestlers and the promotion have an unique negotiation interval the place you, as a wrestler, are usually not allowed to speak to some other firm—you realize, discuss your future. You can’t put together to your subsequent contract, and that size of interval is 9 months. I feel that’s an unreasonable period of time. Thirty days, 60 days—I imply, this stuff take time and get dragged out via no one’s fault. I’ve seen it.”
Dawkins then walked via precisely how the timeline allegedly works by utilizing The New Day for instance. In response to him, as soon as expertise hit the ultimate 9 months of their contracts, WWE turns into the one firm they’re allowed to barter with. As he broke down the construction, Dawkins made it clear AEW and different promotions would successfully be off-limits.
“When does that 90 days begin? What does 9 months truly cowl? 9 months. So in case you’ve received a five-year—let’s say it’s a New Day five-year contract—beginning at yr 4 and three months. So yr 4, three months, you can’t speak to anyone else. So the final 9 months of your deal, you’ll be able to’t speak to AEW or TNA or GCW or whomever. You’ll be able to’t speak to anyone. You’ll be able to solely speak to WWE throughout that 9 months.”
Dawkins then pivoted into the way in which wrestling followers continually throw across the phrase “contract tampering” on-line and defined why he believes many individuals essentially misunderstand what that truly means legally. Whereas discussing the problem, he defined that bizarre conversations about future work alternatives are usually not robotically unlawful.
“Once more, that doesn’t essentially trouble me. Folks prefer to—that is one other factor misunderstood about wrestling contracts and possibly the legislation typically—is individuals prefer to throw out contract tampering. ‘Oh, there’s tampering, there’s tampering.’ Tampering is a professional sports activities factor. It’s a collective bargaining factor. Contract tampering isn’t a contract factor.”
He continued by clarifying the authorized distinction between discussing future work and actively making an attempt to persuade anyone to violate an energetic settlement.
“You do have tortious interference with contracts, the place you might be interfering with a enterprise relationship or with a contract. Having a dialog about getting ready to your subsequent contract isn’t interference.”
Dawkins then defined what sort of conduct truly would grow to be legally problematic.
“Now, when you’ve got coached anyone, urged anyone, executed no matter to get them to breach their contract or depart their contract early one way or the other, that’s completely different. That in all probability is tortious interference or could also be tortious interference. However contract tampering actually isn’t a factor. You’re allowed to arrange to your subsequent deal—put together to your subsequent job.”
In response to Dawkins, that’s precisely why these newer WWE clauses concern him a lot. He defined that the language basically blocks wrestlers from getting ready for his or her subsequent alternatives throughout a very powerful stretch of their contracts.
“So what that is successfully doing is saying, ‘Hey, you’ll be able to’t do this.’ I imply, you are able to do it beginning in yr three or yr 4—month one, month two, month three—however following that, the subsequent 9 months, you’ll be able to’t speak to anyone. You can’t put together to your subsequent gig.”
Dawkins then defined why that turns into particularly brutal in wrestling as a result of artistic plans and firm priorities shift so rapidly. As he put it, 9 months in wrestling may as nicely be endlessly.
“Effectively, as you realize, Eric, having been in artistic and been concerned with wrestling a very long time, 9 months on this planet of artistic is a lifetime. So a promotion isn’t going to speak to you now and say, ‘Effectively, yeah, 9 months—we’ll carry you in and do that.’ A lot adjustments that realistically 9 months is simply so lengthy that no one’s going to speak to you and strike a deal that early anyway.”
However probably the most surprising a part of the dialog got here when Dawkins began discussing “matching rights” clauses allegedly showing in contracts after wrestlers depart WWE. In response to Dawkins, even after contracts expire and after the standard 90-day interval ends, wrestlers should still be pressured to carry exterior gives again to WWE earlier than signing anyplace else. As he defined the construction, Dawkins mentioned WWE might probably maintain matching rights for six extra months after a deal ends.
“So assuming they get via that interval, they haven’t reached a deal, your contract has ended—or it additionally sits and your contract is terminated. In order that they’ve ended it, they’ve given you your 90-day discover. And on the finish of these 90 days, for six months after the top of your contract—for six months after they terminate you, so six months after the 90 days—in case you get a long-term reserving contract from some other wrestling promotion, you must carry it to them, they usually get a proper to match it on the identical monetary phrases.”
He questioned whether or not “matching” merely means WWE could make a competing provide — or whether or not the language is supposed to intimidate wrestlers into believing they’re legally pressured to return. Whereas strolling via the situation, Dawkins once more used New Day for instance involving Tony Khan and AEW.
“Now, the place the language is delightfully imprecise is—what does matching it imply? Is it simply a suggestion to say, ‘Hey, we’ll carry up New Day—I don’t know something greater than you guys do—however we didn’t need you at million a yr every, and also you didn’t need to take a pay lower, so that you’re gone. So now they go to AEW and say, “Hey, Tony, need to get employed?” And Tony says, “Yeah, I’ll offer you million.” Effectively, then WWE would have the precise to say, “Okay, we’ll match it. Come again.”’ At the very least that’s what they’re suggesting on this language as a result of it simply says they’ve a proper to match.”
Dawkins then defined why many wrestlers might merely comply somewhat than threat preventing WWE legally. He identified that the wording itself might scare expertise into believing they don’t have any actual selection.
“Effectively, what does that imply? Does that simply imply you now have two gives? As a result of to have a contract—have one thing binding—you must have consideration, a suggestion, and acceptance. That’s how you’ve got one thing binding. So it’s imprecise sufficient that individuals are going to be intimidated in the event that they inform them, ‘Hey, if we match it, you must work right here.’ They’re in all probability going to imagine it.”
He then defined why he doubts most wrestlers or rival firms would realistically problem WWE over the language.
“Or you would need to struggle and show that that language doesn’t imply that you simply’re certain to them—it’s only a matching provide. Effectively, who’s going to struggle them? Is New Day going to struggle WWE and their authorized crew? Is AEW going to? Most likely not.”
However in line with Dawkins, one other model of the clause removes the anomaly utterly. He revealed that some contracts outright state that if WWE matches an out of doors provide, the wrestler turns into obligated to return. As he described the wording, Dawkins overtly questioned whether or not courts would even enable one thing like that.
“And the language says, ‘And if we resolve to match it, you might be hereby certain to work for us.’ So it’s not delightfully imprecise—it’s specific that they mainly have a proper of first refusal in your companies.”
He then instantly in contrast that concept to one thing courts usually don’t react nicely to.
“And the explanation it’s imprecise, like I mentioned, is—is it actually simply a suggestion, or does that imply you’re certain to work for them? As a result of in case you’re certain to work for them, boy, that appears rather a lot like indentured servitude, and that’s not one thing the court docket techniques actually like—significantly in companies contracts.”
Dawkins later defined that he particularly raised considerations about wrestlers who might not need to keep in WWE due to private conflicts, administration points, or mental-health struggles. As he described the dialog, he immediately requested what would occur if anyone was depressing there and needed out.
“So I raised the query. I mentioned, ‘What occurs if there’s a disagreement? I don’t get together with anyone—a co-worker. I don’t get together with administration. I don’t get together with you, proprietor or president or whomever. I’m depressing right here. It’s unhealthy for my psychological well being. And I get a suggestion and also you guys match it—you’re forcing me to work in an setting I don’t need to be in.’”
In response to Dawkins, the reply he received was basically, “belief us.” Dawkins then defined why that reply was not remotely adequate legally. He mentioned verbal guarantees imply little or no when the precise contract language says the alternative.
“So what do you imply? ‘Effectively, you realize, if anyone doesn’t need to be right here, we wouldn’t power them to be right here.’ Okay, then let’s put that within the contract—that if they offer you that discover, you received’t execute it—or let’s simply take the language out.”
He then revealed the response he allegedly acquired when requesting these protections in writing: “‘No, we will’t do this both.’”Dawkins made it clear that response raised much more considerations for him. He defined that expertise are successfully being requested to blindly belief the corporate with out authorized safety.
“Effectively, wait a minute—so I’m simply presupposed to belief your phrase that you simply say, ‘Effectively, we might by no means train it beneath these circumstances,’ and that’s going to be one thing we simply must belief—but it surely’s not in writing. We’ve no proof, nothing that stands up in court docket.”
In response to Dawkins, the reply boiled down to at least one factor: “‘Yeah, you’re simply going to must belief us.’” He then summed up his total place bluntly.
“It doesn’t work for me as anyone who represents expertise, however they’re being intractable about it.”
Lastly, Dawkins defined that these post-contract restrictions can proceed affecting wrestlers for months after their offers expire, particularly if exterior gives change throughout negotiations. As he described the construction, each main adjustment to an out of doors provide can restart WWE’s overview interval another time.
“And in case you get a suggestion, they’ve a sure period of time—15 days—to match it or not match it. And if the provide adjustments in some materials manner, you must carry it again to them, and also you begin that 15 days over once more. So basically, you’re beholden to them to present them any gives that you simply’ve gotten for as much as 105 days after your contract has ended—and with none additional compensation.”
Backside line — this isn’t nearly non-compete clauses anymore. Between nine-month negotiation lockouts, post-contract matching rights, and language that might probably drag wrestlers again into WWE after they attempt to depart, all the construction of WWE contracts beneath TKO is beginning to look utterly completely different than what expertise handled even just a few years in the past. And if this language turns into the brand new commonplace, future free company in wrestling might by no means work the identical manner once more.
Do you suppose TKO’s contract adjustments go too far, or is that this simply the truth of billion-dollar wrestling firms defending their enterprise? Drop your ideas beneath and tell us.
Please credit score Ringside Information in case you use the above transcript in your publication.