I’ve often wondered how WWE’s "no compete" clause is legal? I mean a talent’s contract is not renewed and they are no longer be paid by the WWE, yet can’t seek employment with a rival company for a certain amount of time right after. Doesn’t "right to work" issues come into play here? Thanks.
Brock Lesnar successful sued them under "right to work" laws, but your description of the clause isn’t how it works anyway. The no-compete clause only comes into effect if the contract is terminated before it’s finished, like if the wrestler quits and receives a release, or is fired by the company and released. And if they’re under a no-compete, then the company absolutely does pay them for the 90 days stipulated by the contract. However, if a contract expires or isn’t renewed, the talent is free to go wherever they want immediately after the contract is over. Christian ended up in TNA days after his contract ended, for exampie, and Ryback could have worked wherever he wanted when his contract was done earlier this year. It’s actually handled very fairly for the most part.