Should the no compete clause be banned?

[Trill Co$by]

In the world of WWE and TNA, the men and women who work the big ones usually have the standard 90 days no compete clause put into their contract where they can not compete for the 90 days as the clause says. However, in today's economy, is that abit unfair?

A lot of men who leave the WWE or TNA have children and families to raise. Their careers are a major part of their income and without the pay from bookings, bad things can happen to pro wrestlers and their families. Now I understand that WWE doesn't want someone to appear on TNA and take their fans away, but at the same time I'm sure that they realize that these men and women who they release have a family to feed.

In a way it's black listing someone for 90 days which is honestly not too fair... just wondering, what are your opinions?

 

[hatehabsforever]

I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with the 90 day no-compete clause remaining in effect exactly as it is. There is absolutely no reason to ban it. WWE doesn't want to use their time and resources to build a guy's career, only to have him use this fame and face value to work for the "competition." I guess in theory the reverse could also be true, if there was actually anyone on the TNA roster that WWE wanted or needed. It is a simple logical way for the WWE to protect itself against incidents like Lex Luger, Rick Rude, Madusa, or what Bret Hart could have had the potential to do.

The guys know they have the clause in effect. If they have a problem with it, they don't have to sign the contract in the first place. Plus, I cannot imagine that any of the wrestlers on the WWE roster who were to be released would be unable to feed and support their families without income for 3 months. These guys who are significant enough to have such a clause in effect make pretty big money. As well, they know the risks and volatility that comes with the business. If they are not financially responsible enough to make provisions for a "rainy day," they would have no one to blame but themselves. Because such "rainy days" are a part of the professional wrestling business that numerous guys have to deal with at some point in their careers.

Let's face it, I don't think MVP's family needs to worry about having food on their tables for the next three months. If his family's financial situation were that dire, he would have to be guilty of some terrible money mis-management, and that would be his own fault, not that of WWE. Plus, I'm sure there's a lucrative contract waiting for him in Orlando when March 2011 arrives. Maybe he's the one who is coming to change TNA Wrestling forever. Let the tweeting begin!

 

[the troop]

Well, during the 90 day no compete clause, the wwe actually pays the released wrestlers. After a little bit of searching, I found this:

http://www.pwinsider.com/article/44...a-dibiase-the-90-day-buyout-and-more.html?p=1

Scroll down to the last question and you will find this little nugget:

When WWE chooses to release them, they agree to pay them for three months

While this isn't the most overwhelming evidence you can google it yourself and you'll find plenty of websites that say the same thing.

Anyway, there isn't really an issue with money for the released wrestlers as they get paid for those 90 days by the wwe. They don't have to worry about providing for their families and whatnot. Even if they didn't get paid during the 90 days, as HateHabsForever stated above they should know actually what they are agreeing to in regards to the contracts. But as I showed, this problem is null and void.

 

[Sora/roxas]

Well they spend time and money to get someone over just for another company to use their work. Plus, some times ive noticed that they will let the superstar compete they just cant sign with a company or apear on TV. Also, the superstar knows about the clause before they sign so if they dont want to have to deal with it, dont sign the contract with that company

 

[Y2JChrisJericho]

Well, during the 90 day no compete clause, the wwe actually pays the released wrestlers. After a little bit of searching, I found this:

http://www.pwinsider.com/article/44...a-dibiase-the-90-day-buyout-and-more.html?p=1

Scroll down to the last question and you will find this little nugget:



While this isn't the most overwhelming evidence you can google it yourself and you'll find plenty of websites that say the same thing.

Anyway, there isn't really an issue with money for the released wrestlers as they get paid for those 90 days by the wwe. They don't have to worry about providing for their families and whatnot. Even if they didn't get paid during the 90 days, as HateHabsForever stated above they should know actually what they are agreeing to in regards to the contracts. But as I showed, this problem is null and void.

Yeah, WWE Does actually pay the wrestlers, Shelton Benjamin told me himself through twitter when I talked to him (Mark out moment! haha). Charlie Haas has said the same hting as well, so the WWE does pay the wrestlers and therefore the clause should be there. I can see why the WWE does it too, so nothing like the Lex Luger incident happens. Plus, if someone jumped ship right after their contract expired they carry a lot of momentum, if they make a return some people just might not care. I know if I saw Matt Hardy on Impact just after he got released it would be perfect with the whole Jeff storyline and it would draw some viewers maybe...the WWE prevents this with the 90 day no compete clause, and I don't mind it at all. Plus, it gives the wrestlers a much needed break/.

 

[CH David]

No. Why would a silly thing like that happen? Vince put it in there so shit like Madusa showing up on Nitro after she was released and throwing the Women's Championship in the trash couldn't happen. Plus it's only for tv appearances. The wrestlers that get released could easily take an indy job and get paid for the appearance on top of what the WWE pays them while they are out. Definitely a legal document and is a part of other corporations, not just wrestling. So no, it shouldn't be banned.

 

[Mr. Artistic guy]

I see a lot of people saying no, but your all taking a WWE management stance. Your thinking if I'm Vince I don't want to see my talent transfer all of their momentum to the competition the week after I fire them.. But from a wrestling fan stand-point, I'd love to see it go. Yeah I'd mark out if there was another Rick Rude moment these days.

Seen as it is pretty munh proven that there is no harm to the wrestlers themselves as they still get payed, there is no actualy obligation for WWE to do a thing. That also means, answering your question, that no it doesn't HAVE to be banned. But doesn't mean it wouldn't be great to watch.

And I find it a little hard to digest the arguement, if you don't like the contract, don't sign it. If you get offered a job in WWE, you aren't going to say no if they stick a 90-day no compete clause on the end, but you'll only be thinking about your WWE future not when you get released. It doesn't have to be banned, but I'd like to see WWE revise it somewhat although I know they won't.

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with the 90 day no-compete clause remaining in effect exactly as it is. There is absolutely no reason to ban it. WWE doesn't want to use their time and resources to build a guy's career, only to have him use this fame and face value to work for the "competition." I guess in theory the reverse could also be true, if there was actually anyone on the TNA roster that WWE wanted or needed. It is a simple logical way for the WWE to protect itself against incidents like Lex Luger, Rick Rude, Madusa, or what Bret Hart could have had the potential to do.

Got it in one.

Also, if the WWE does pay its talent for the 90 days (essentially 3 months pay), then there is nothing wrong with the No Compete Clause. Also, it gives the talent chance to heal up after the demanding WWE schedule.

 

[Jacob]

I doubt they would have a hard time feeding their family. They do get payed during the 90 days no compete clause so they are fine.

I agree that they don't want to spend their time and money to build him just to see him leave. Example MVP. His new theme probabily costed money right? And a huge part of many wrestlers Gimmick takes up a lot of money and or time.

So in finsl thought, if they weren't able to go without 3 months they could just get a job. Besides after being released you should have a large ammount of cash. It's just a part of buisness.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

I wrote up a topic on this months ago, and my opinion hasn't changed since. It's cancerous to the wrestlers, regardless of how it actually affects companies who can technically survive despite it.

As anyone here can tell, three months in the wrestling world can be a very, very long time, which can effectively write out the impact (no pun intended) of said performer were they to debut in a rival company once that NCC did in fact expire.

In some cases it doesn't matter — see Mr. Anderson's debut with TNA. But in others it likely killed any opportunity to capitalize on a mistake — see Brian Danielson.

 

[MisterRob]

Who the hell's going to ban the 90 day no compete clause? The WWE is going to ban it themselves? None of this even makes sense. From a business standpoint, and that's all that matters when you're talking about banning the 90 day no compete clause, it makes perfect sense to have it in tact for the benefit of the WWE. The wrestlers sign a contract, they accept the 90 day no compete clause if they don't become an asset to the job and are ever let go, and they're even paid for the 3 months after they're released, so what's the problem?

Why would WWE want their hard work, time and money to become a benefit to another company? Why would they want everything they put into these wrestlers to try to help them become stars and assets to the WWE (and therefore any company afterwards) to be used against them if they release the wrestler? It's sound business by the WWE, it's nothing but legal and ethical, so people asking whether it should be banned is silly. Of course it shouldn't be. There's no sensible reason it should be... and internet wrestling fans wanting the shock of the Monday Night Wars era is not a valid reason, sorry.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Who the hell's going to ban the 90 day no compete clause? The WWE is going to ban it themselves? None of this even makes sense. From a business standpoint, and that's all that matters when you're talking about banning the 90 day no compete clause, it makes perfect sense to have it in tact for the benefit of the WWE. The wrestlers sign a contract, they accept the 90 day no compete clause if they don't become an asset to the job and are ever let go, and they're even paid for the 3 months after they're released, so what's the problem?

Why would WWE want their hard work, time and money to become a benefit to another company? Why would they want everything they put into these wrestlers to try to help them become stars and assets to the WWE (and therefore any company afterwards) to be used against them if they release the wrestler? It's sound business by the WWE, it's nothing but legal and ethical, so people asking whether it should be banned is silly. Of course it shouldn't be. There's no sensible reason it should be... and internet wrestling fans wanting the shock of the Monday Night Wars era is not a valid reason, sorry.

There's a thin red line between that which is ethical and that which is legal. It's legal for you to abort a child in the State of New York while in the first trimester, as to whether it's ethical, well, that's up for debate, now isn't it? Same applies to this (albeit to a far lesser moral degree).

It can be said that it's existence is in fact cancerous, but unavoidable. What choice does a performer have who is signing a deal with the only large-level player in the industry? Yeah, they can stand on a moral soapbox and decree it unjust and refuse, but that doesn't help them pay the bills or put food on their kids' plate (or their own). A contract does.

Did WWE come up with a rather ingenius solution to a problem that almost bankrupted them? Absolutley. Is it ethical for them to bar former competitors who worked for their company for competing on television for any "rival" companies for 90 days following their release? Debatable. That three months can be the difference between actually getting a contract elsewhere or not, which can mean the difference between struggling to make ends meat and actually being financially secure.

 

[Davi323]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. This is a common occurrence in the business world. Companies make employees sign these things all the time. 90 days is actually a really short period. I had to sign one once that was for 2 years...

 

[Eyebrows]

It's not the best deal for an employee but WWE would be unwise from a business point to ban it. As far as I know, courts look down on such clauses as they tie the hands of the employee and only enforce them when it's a clear violation.

BUT, as part a wider debate WWE shouldn't be able to have the perks of calling their employees independent contractors and enjoying such things as non-compete clauses while restricting things like the lifestyle and dress code as if they were employees, not independent contractors. They can't have both.

Ethically I'd say the best way for such clauses to be fair would be to have them come into play when talent leaves the company willingly or after a contract is up but to be void if the talent is fired or released against their will. I think sometimes that's the case in other businesses, where the cause of release is considered within the clause.