Tired
Legend
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2011
- Messages
- 4,768
- Reaction score
- 0
With morale being at an all-time low in WWE, they have just become worse. Management have added a new stipulation to all performer contracts.
The new stipulation basically makes the infamous "No Compete Clause" more restrictive. If the superstar is released for "disciplinary reasons", the no compete clause prevents them from signing with any wrestling or MMA company for one full year... anywhere in the world. As an added insult, the released superstar would forfeit all merchandising rights and royalty payments.
This is a direct response to CM Punk and Alberto Del Rio succesfully overcoming their No Compete Clauses. Both men challenged the stipulation in court. Both were hired as "independent contractors", so the WWE has no right to tell former employees not to accept bookings anywhere. Punk successfully sued for back-pay owed from merchandising. He also signed a deal with the Ultimate Fighting Championship as MMA companies were not previously off limits. Del Rio signed with AAA in Mexico as it is not in the US and did not violate the old No Compete Clause. He successfully challenged the clause in court and has since signed a deal with Ring Of Honor. Del Rio's no compete clause also prevented him from doing any interviews or talking about his release in the US.
Buff Bagwell recently explained the reason why WWE "released" talent was so that Management had time to change their minds and would not have to re-negotiate a superstars contract. As far as we know, if a superstar is released for any reason other than "disciplinary reasons", they are still subject to the old No Compete Clause stipulation. They cannot compete for any wrestling company that holds television broadcasts, pay-per-views or iPPVs for 90 days. They will still be owed merchandise royalties.
The new stipulation basically makes the infamous "No Compete Clause" more restrictive. If the superstar is released for "disciplinary reasons", the no compete clause prevents them from signing with any wrestling or MMA company for one full year... anywhere in the world. As an added insult, the released superstar would forfeit all merchandising rights and royalty payments.
This is a direct response to CM Punk and Alberto Del Rio succesfully overcoming their No Compete Clauses. Both men challenged the stipulation in court. Both were hired as "independent contractors", so the WWE has no right to tell former employees not to accept bookings anywhere. Punk successfully sued for back-pay owed from merchandising. He also signed a deal with the Ultimate Fighting Championship as MMA companies were not previously off limits. Del Rio signed with AAA in Mexico as it is not in the US and did not violate the old No Compete Clause. He successfully challenged the clause in court and has since signed a deal with Ring Of Honor. Del Rio's no compete clause also prevented him from doing any interviews or talking about his release in the US.
Buff Bagwell recently explained the reason why WWE "released" talent was so that Management had time to change their minds and would not have to re-negotiate a superstars contract. As far as we know, if a superstar is released for any reason other than "disciplinary reasons", they are still subject to the old No Compete Clause stipulation. They cannot compete for any wrestling company that holds television broadcasts, pay-per-views or iPPVs for 90 days. They will still be owed merchandise royalties.