Andrade’s WWE Non-Compete Clause Could Be Deemed Illegal Under U.S. Law

The uncertainty around Andrade El Idolo’s AEW status just got a lot more complicated. WWE’s new non-compete clause policy is putting his future on hold, but now a legal expert says the way the company is handling things could actually be illegal under U.S. law.

During an interview with Lucha Libre Online, Michael Morales, the outlet’s Vice President and a legal analyst, broke down WWE and TKO’s updated contract rule. The new 2025 policy allows WWE to enforce a one-year non-compete clause if a wrestler is fired for breaking rules or violating their deal. Morales explained that while U.S. law does allow for non-competes, there’s a major catch—wrestlers must be paid during that time.

“Six months to two years is considered reasonable under Connecticut, Florida, and U.S. federal law. Non-compete clauses aren’t forever—they have to be for a specific, reasonable period. One year is a rational contractual penalty—you agreed to it when you signed. But note: it’s not that you’ll go a year without pay. WWE, for one reason or another—depending on the contract—must provide fair compensation during that period. You can’t have a non-compete without compensation. Otherwise, it’s technically slavery, and slavery isn’t legal in the U.S. or anywhere else.”

The issue with Andrade’s situation is the report that he’s currently tied to a 90-day unpaid non-compete. Morales pointed out that this type of arrangement doesn’t align with how non-competes are supposed to function.

“Now, about Andrade’s case: There’s talk that Andrade has a 90-day non-compete, but unpaid. Let me make this distinction clear. If you’re under a non-compete clause, you’re in a non-contractual status—your contract ended… Different is a 90-day suspension without pay—that’s still under contract. If there’s a non-compete clause, you’re no longer under contract—just bound by that penalty. So, if you’re suspended 90 days without pay, you’re still employed—you come back after. But if it’s a non-compete, the contract is over, and you must be compensated for that restricted period.”

Morales made it clear that if WWE tries to enforce their new one-year rule without providing pay, it could be challenged in court and deemed illegal.

“If it’s a full year without pay, that’s illegal. This isn’t Central Africa, where weird laws exist—this is the United States, and that’s illegal. You must pay for that one-year non-compete period.”

He added that if WWE structures the deal with some form of payment, even partial, it becomes enforceable.

“So again: WWE can impose the one-year clause, but they must pay for it. If they tell Andrade, ‘Your contract’s still active; you’ll sit out three months unpaid, then nine months paid,’—that’s legal. Technicalities make all the difference.”

Right now, Andrade already has a lawyer ready if this turns into a legal battle. If WWE’s new rule doesn’t hold up in court, it could reshape how wrestling contracts and non-compete clauses are handled across the entire industry.

Please credit Ringside News if you use the above transcript in your publication.