David Otunga lays the Smackdown on Independent Contractor Contracts

[Hannibal Scorch]

Oof

I don’t think they will be punished for this, but obviously he’s a very credible voice to discuss legal issues and wrestling. It’s not gotten much traction but I expect this to gather more visibility if it does get picked up by a prominent source

[Chili]

48 minutes ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

Oof

I don’t think they will be punished for this, but obviously he’s a very credible voice to discuss legal issues and wrestling. It’s not gotten much traction but I expect this to gather more visibility if it does get picked up by a prominent source

It won't, it's wrestling, nobody credible will give a fuck and if they did it doesn't matter as it's still wrestling. 

[Carbomb]

10 hours ago, Chili said:

It won't, it's wrestling, nobody credible will give a fuck and if they did it doesn't matter as it's still wrestling. 

More importantly, their buddy is in the White House, and one of their founding execs is there with him.

[Supremo]

When you’ve watched and followed long enough, you know there are only two outcomes.

The most likely is that fuck all happens. The second most likely is that they offer Otunga a short term contract and he comes in as a heel, turns it into an angle, eats shit for four months, and is then left with nothing to stand on after selling out.

[kieranjennings]

Doesn't all fall apart when the terms of the non-compete is based on a financial payoff (effectively paid not to work that period). The talent can move (and have done in the past) without a non-compete as long as they are not weighed in. 

[Hannibal Scorch]

2 hours ago, kieranjennings said:

Doesn't all fall apart when the terms of the non-compete is based on a financial payoff (effectively paid not to work that period). The talent can move (and have done in the past) without a non-compete as long as they are not weighed in. 

If they have fired him, his contract is terminated. Unless they paid him for the entirety of what was left of that contract, then no.

[kieranjennings]

36 minutes ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

If they have fired him, his contract is terminated. Unless they paid him for the entirety of what was left of that contract, then no.

Depends what the termination clause is really. If the contract has a notice period that needs to be served when releasing then that's what they will get paid up, rather than the whole amount of the contract 

[Hannibal Scorch]

15 minutes ago, kieranjennings said:

Depends what the termination clause is really. If the contract has a notice period that needs to be served when releasing then that's what they will get paid up, rather than the whole amount of the contract 

But you can’t say, here’s your pay up until the end of the month and also, you cannot wrestle anywhere else for a year. Lesner had this and won in court, it’s the same. 
 

When Regal was released early from his AEW deal, Tony asked for him to not be seen on screen for a year. Regal was barely a TV character at NXT and was going back to his prior backstage role. He wasn’t prevented from working. As it turned out, he was working still at the performance centre whilst under AEW contract. When Punk was fired with cause (like Andrade) he had no non compete.

[kieranjennings]

That depends what your contract says though and if you sign it then you are agreeing to it. If you termination clause is 90 days pay but can't work for a year then don't sign it or negotiate it. It used to be a 90 day no compete because that's what matched the pay off. I imagine if it's a year no compete then the payoff is bigger. 

[Tamura]

1 hour ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

But you can’t say, here’s your pay up until the end of the month and also, you cannot wrestle anywhere else for a year. Lesner had this and won in court, it’s the same. 

No, he didn't. The case never made it to trial, WWE and Lesnar came to a settlement.

[Hannibal Scorch]

8 minutes ago, Tamura said:

No, he didn't. The case never made it to trial, WWE and Lesnar came to a settlement.

Thanks for the clarification. But why do you think it was settled? 

[kieranjennings]

And in that case it was Lesnar who signed a contract to 2009 but by 2003 wanted to break it. Effectively WWE were requesting he not work anywhere else for the length of time they had him contracted originally. I'm sure it was all settled when financially they agreed something they were mutually happy with

 

[Carbomb]

The Lesnar thing isn't quite as straightforward, though - McMahon/WWE fucked themselves over through their own vindictiveness. Lesnar pulled a heist on them, if you remember - he pretended he wanted to come back to them, and they deliberately lowballed him, which allowed his lawyers to say "See? If he was worth so little to them, the ten-year no-compete doesn't stand".

[unfitfinlay]

3 hours ago, kieranjennings said:

That depends what your contract says though and if you sign it then you are agreeing to it. If you termination clause is 90 days pay but can't work for a year then don't sign it or negotiate it. It used to be a 90 day no compete because that's what matched the pay off. I imagine if it's a year no compete then the payoff is bigger. 

You're confusing two different clauses.

The 90 day (or 30 for NXT) is written as a notice period. Talent are still under contract for the time period and get paid their downside, the company just chooses not to use them. They can still work other dates, as long as WWE agrees.

The other one, which is actually a no-compete, is specifically about firing someone with cause.  It's to stop someone getting themselves fired so they can immediately jump to the competition. You don't get paid because you breached your contract, but you also can't work anywhere in the US for a year.

The interesting thing for me is that clause has been in the contracts since WCW went under but I think this is only the second time they've tried to enforce it. The first being when Del Rio got fired for slapping that guy backstage, which they quickly caved on. It'll never reach court, but if it did, I'd be interested in how they'd be able to justify that, considering some of the stuff others have done over the years.