Legal Analysis Says WWE Superstars’ Independent Contractor Status May Implode If Challenged In Court

There is no shortage of controversy when it comes to WWE’s contracts. The year-long non-compete clauses are crazy for most to comprehend, but the very basis of the contracts may be full of legal loopholes and vague wording.

WWE classifies its talent as independent contractors, but that classification may not hold up under legal scrutiny. Former wrestler‑lawyer David Otunga has laid out how WWE’s “independent contractor” model, and he did so in a new YouTube video on his channel.

In his video, David Otunga argued that the core problem is in the control WWE has over talent even while labeling them as independent contractors. As he broke down those contracts, he also made it clear that he would help them re-work those contracts. That being said, he found something that could be a “knockout punch” for that situation.

“Now, this is the knockout punch. So the Federal Trade Commission’s 2024 rule banning non‑competes doesn’t just cover employees, it also covers independent contractors.”

Advertising

Advertising

“So even if WWE argues they’re not employees—excuse me—the FTC says it doesn’t matter. Non‑competes for independent contractors are unfair methods of competition. So, I mean, basically that’s checkmate.”

This FTC rule was introduced in 2024, and it explicitly wraps independent contractors into its protections. As David Otunga noted, WWE cannot sidestep compliance simply by continuing to designate talent as non‑employees.

In addition to those WWE contract non‑compete issues, David Otunga highlighted the company’s binding arbitration clause, which is part of every main‑roster contract. The clause makes sure to channel any disputes into private arbitration in Stamford, Connecticut, a state that is very business-friendly, rather than open court.

“So, even if a wrestler wanted to challenge WWE’s contract, they can’t just go to court. Why, you ask?”

“Because buried deep in every WWE contract is a binding arbitration clause. And it basically says that any dispute, claim, or controversy has to be settled privately in Stamford, Connecticut through arbitration, not in open court.”

“So this means there’s no jury, no public trial, and no class actions. The arbitrator’s decision is final and confidential.”

“So, if a wrestler ever challenged their non‑compete or contractor status, it would happen behind closed [doors]. But this in and of itself is another contradiction. Think about it—WWE calls wrestlers independent contractors but forces them into arbitration like employees.”

“Independent contractors normally have the right to choose how and where to resolve disputes, but WWE removes that choice entirely in the contract. So that’s another layer of control, and another reason the independent contractor label just doesn’t hold up.”

David Otunga went on to warn that this framework for WWE contracts puts out the notion that talent are treated as employees, which directly goes against WWE’s independent contractor defense. That leads to the legal “catch‑22” he continued.

“This is kind of a legal catch‑22. WWE really boxed themselves in here. So if wrestlers are truly independent, the company has no legal right to control them with a non‑compete or to force them into arbitration.“

“But if WWE exercises that level of control, then wrestlers are really employees, and WWE could owe years of back pay and benefits. So either way, it backfires. WWE just can’t have it both ways.”

“You can’t call wrestlers independent to save money, then treat them like employees when it’s convenient. I mean, that’s not independence. That’s clearly control. And in contract law, control is the key test for an employer.”

Andrade may be the most recent Superstar to deal with this kind of situation, but he likely won’t be the last. In the meantime, WWE contracts are going to keep including this wording.

Pro wrestling fans, and attorneys, are now watching this situation closely. If one talent files a lawsuit and wins, that could overturn the classification or non‑complete enforcement all together. The big question is who has the resources to make that happen, because it would take a lot of legal fees to fight a machine like WWE.

It remains to be seen whether a court case will come out of this. As the legal landscape changes, one thing is clear, because WWE’s idea of classification and control is facing serious pushback.