>>19140009
contracts are different but generally every wrestler is going to have a non-compete clause in theirs to some degree, stating that, if they exit the company, they can't work in other wrestling companies for X amount of days. the length can vary and if you are released without cause it is generally shorter, if you are released with cause (like andrade) it can be longer. they also have them for contract expirations too. like in the WWE cuts earlier this year, i think shotzi could sign anywhere instantly as opposed to like cora or gigi or isla dawn who had to wait 90 days because shotzi's expired and the others were released.
the wrestlers agree to it because they just kind of have to. the promotions hold the power. every major promotion has non-competes to some extent because it benefits them have them. for the wrestlers, they can agree or they can not wrestle for that promotion.
it's legally dubious. brock, when he quit WWE the first time, had to sign like a 6 year non compete clause to grant his release. he challenged this in court and the judge was nearly going to rule in his favor but WWE settled before that happened. for short non-competes like the usual 30-90 days, wrestlers just tank it and use that time to recuperate. if a wrestler really wanted to challenge it, it'd have to be for an extreme case like brock or andrade's. they might be able to win and set precedent, but the case would take over a year and cost a ton of money so it wouldn't even matter in andrade's case. that's why WWE settled in brock's, because he had the time left and money to beat them if he kept at it.
david otunga, who is now a harvard-grad lawyer, says he thinks andrade could have a case if he really can't work anywhere and isn't getting paid by WWE.
