Subhojeet Mukherjee on May 8, 2026
New details about WWE’s TKO-era contracts are painting a much more aggressive picture of how the company plans to control talent movement moving forward — and according to wrestling attorney Mike Dawkins, some of the language could become a massive legal fight one day.
The conversation around WWE’s new contract structure first began back in October 2025 when Bryan Alvarez revealed on Wrestling Observer Radio that TKO-era deals already included much harsher non-compete language than fans were used to.
At the time, Alvarez explained that newer WWE contracts included a one-year non-compete clause tied specifically to talent being fired for cause or breach. While discussing the issue, Alvarez stressed this was no longer rare contract language buried in isolated deals.
“We have it confirmed through multiple sources that the new TKO contracts have a clause where if you are fired, there is a one-year non-compete. The older contracts had this but it’s standard now. This is the hold-up involving Andrade. Very skeptical this would hold up in a legal battle, but it’s in the contracts.”
Speaking on the 83 Weeks podcast, wrestling attorney Mike Dawkins broke down several new clauses allegedly appearing in WWE contracts under TKO — and some of them could dramatically limit how freely wrestlers negotiate with AEW, TNA, GCW, or anybody else.
Dawkins first focused on what he described as a new “exclusive negotiation period” built into contracts. According to him, wrestlers are now being blocked from even discussing their future with another company during the final nine months of their deals. As Dawkins explained it, the restriction doesn’t just stop talent from signing elsewhere — it stops them from preparing for life after WWE entirely.
“It is now being explicitly written into contracts that the wrestlers and the promotion have an exclusive negotiation period where you, as a wrestler, are not allowed to talk to any other company—you know, talk about your future. You cannot prepare for your next contract, and that length of period is nine months. I think that’s an unreasonable amount of time. Thirty days, 60 days—I mean, these things take time and get dragged out through nobody’s fault. I’ve seen it.”
Dawkins then walked through exactly how the timeline allegedly works by using The New Day as an example. According to him, once talent hit the final nine months of their contracts, WWE becomes the only company they’re allowed to negotiate with. As he broke down the structure, Dawkins made it clear AEW and other promotions would effectively be off-limits.
“When does that 90 days start? What does nine months actually cover? Nine months. So if you’ve got a five-year—let’s say it’s a New Day five-year contract—starting at year four and three months. So year four, three months, you cannot talk to anybody else. So the last nine months of your deal, you can’t talk to AEW or TNA or GCW or whomever. You can’t talk to anybody. You can only talk to WWE during that nine months.”
Dawkins then pivoted into the way wrestling fans constantly throw around the phrase “contract tampering” online and explained why he believes many people fundamentally misunderstand what that actually means legally. While discussing the issue, he explained that ordinary conversations about future work opportunities are not automatically illegal.
“Again, that doesn’t necessarily bother me. People like to—this is another thing misunderstood about wrestling contracts and probably the law in general—is people like to throw out contract tampering. ‘Oh, there’s tampering, there’s tampering.’ Tampering is a pro sports thing. It’s a collective bargaining thing. Contract tampering is not a contract thing.”
He continued by clarifying the legal difference between discussing future work and actively trying to convince somebody to violate an active agreement.
“You do have tortious interference with contracts, where you are interfering with a business relationship or with a contract. Having a conversation about preparing for your next contract is not interference.”
Dawkins then explained what kind of behavior actually would become legally problematic.
“Now, if you have coached somebody, urged somebody, done whatever to get them to breach their contract or leave their contract early somehow, that’s different. That probably is tortious interference or may be tortious interference. But contract tampering really isn’t a thing. You’re allowed to prepare for your next deal—prepare for your next job.”
According to Dawkins, that’s exactly why these newer WWE clauses concern him so much. He explained that the language essentially blocks wrestlers from preparing for their next opportunities during the most important stretch of their contracts.
“So what this is effectively doing is saying, ‘Hey, you can’t do that.’ I mean, you can do it starting in year three or year four—month one, month two, month three—but following that, the next nine months, you can’t talk to anybody. You cannot prepare for your next gig.”
Dawkins then explained why that becomes especially brutal in wrestling because creative plans and company priorities shift so quickly. As he put it, nine months in wrestling might as well be forever.
“Well, as you know, Eric, having been in creative and been involved with wrestling a long time, nine months in the world of creative is a lifetime. So a promotion is not going to talk to you now and say, ‘Well, yeah, nine months—we’ll bring you in and do this.’ So much changes that realistically nine months is just so long that nobody’s going to talk to you and strike a deal that early anyway.”
But the most shocking part of the conversation came when Dawkins started discussing “matching rights” clauses allegedly appearing in contracts after wrestlers leave WWE. According to Dawkins, even after contracts expire and after the traditional 90-day period ends, wrestlers may still be forced to bring outside offers back to WWE before signing anywhere else. As he explained the structure, Dawkins said WWE could potentially hold matching rights for six additional months after a deal ends.
“So assuming they get through that period, they haven’t reached a deal, your contract has ended—or it also sits and your contract is terminated. So they’ve ended it, they’ve given you your 90-day notice. And at the end of those 90 days, for six months after the end of your contract—for six months after they terminate you, so six months after the 90 days—if you get a long-term booking contract from any other wrestling promotion, you have to bring it to them, and they get a right to match it on the same financial terms.”
He questioned whether “matching” simply means WWE can make a competing offer — or whether the language is meant to intimidate wrestlers into believing they are legally forced to return. While walking through the scenario, Dawkins again used New Day as an example involving Tony Khan and AEW.
“Now, where the language is delightfully vague is—what does matching it mean? Is it just an offer to say, ‘Hey, we’ll bring up New Day—I don’t know anything more than you guys do—but we didn’t want you at million a year each, and you didn’t want to take a pay cut, so you’re gone. So now they go to AEW and say, “Hey, Tony, want to get hired?” And Tony says, “Yeah, I’ll give you million.” Well, then WWE would have the right to say, “Okay, we’ll match it. Come back.”’ At least that’s what they’re suggesting in this language because it just says they have a right to match.”
Dawkins then explained why many wrestlers may simply comply rather than risk fighting WWE legally. He pointed out that the wording itself could scare talent into believing they have no real choice.
“Well, what does that mean? Does that just mean you now have two offers? Because to have a contract—have something binding—you have to have consideration, an offer, and acceptance. That’s how you have something binding. So it’s vague enough that people are going to be intimidated if they tell them, ‘Hey, if we match it, you have to work here.’ They’re probably going to believe it.”
He then explained why he doubts most wrestlers or rival companies would realistically challenge WWE over the language.
“Or you would have to fight and prove that that language doesn’t mean that you’re bound to them—it’s just a matching offer. Well, who’s going to fight them? Is New Day going to fight WWE and their legal team? Is AEW going to? Probably not.”
But according to Dawkins, another version of the clause removes the ambiguity completely. He revealed that some contracts outright state that if WWE matches an outside offer, the wrestler becomes obligated to return. As he described the wording, Dawkins openly questioned whether courts would even allow something like that.
“And the language says, ‘And if we decide to match it, you are hereby bound to work for us.’ So it’s no longer delightfully vague—it is explicit that they basically have a right of first refusal on your services.”
He then immediately compared that idea to something courts generally do not react well to.
“And the reason it’s vague, like I said, is—is it really just an offer, or does that mean you’re bound to work for them? Because if you’re bound to work for them, boy, that looks a lot like indentured servitude, and that’s not something the court systems really like—particularly in services contracts.”
Dawkins later explained that he specifically raised concerns about wrestlers who may no longer want to stay in WWE because of personal conflicts, management issues, or mental-health struggles. As he described the conversation, he directly asked what would happen if somebody was miserable there and wanted out.
“So I raised the question. I said, ‘What happens if there’s a disagreement? I don’t get along with somebody—a co-worker. I don’t get along with management. I don’t get along with you, owner or president or whomever. I’m miserable here. It’s bad for my mental health. And I get an offer and you guys match it—you’re forcing me to work in an environment I don’t want to be in.’”
According to Dawkins, the answer he got was essentially, “trust us.” Dawkins then explained why that answer was not remotely good enough legally. He said verbal promises mean very little when the actual contract language says the opposite.
“So what do you mean? ‘Well, you know, if somebody doesn’t want to be here, we wouldn’t force them to be here.’ Okay, then let’s put that in the contract—that if they give you that notice, you won’t execute it—or let’s just take the language out.”
He then revealed the response he allegedly received when requesting those protections in writing: “‘No, we can’t do that either.’”Dawkins made it clear that response raised even more concerns for him. He explained that talent are effectively being asked to blindly trust the company without legal protection.
“Well, wait a minute—so I’m just supposed to trust your word that you say, ‘Well, we would never exercise it under those circumstances,’ and that’s going to be something we just have to trust—but it’s not in writing. We have no evidence, nothing that stands up in court.”
According to Dawkins, the answer boiled down to one thing: “‘Yeah, you’re just going to have to trust us.’” He then summed up his overall position bluntly.
“It doesn’t work for me as somebody who represents talent, but they’re being intractable about it.”
Finally, Dawkins explained that these post-contract restrictions can continue affecting wrestlers for months after their deals expire, especially if outside offers change during negotiations. As he described the structure, every major adjustment to an outside offer can restart WWE’s review period all over again.
“And if you get an offer, they have a certain amount of time—15 days—to match it or not match it. And if the offer changes in some material way, you have to bring it back to them, and you start that 15 days over again. So essentially, you’re beholden to them to give them any offers that you’ve gotten for up to 105 days after your contract has ended—and without any further compensation.”
Bottom line — this isn’t just about non-compete clauses anymore. Between nine-month negotiation lockouts, post-contract matching rights, and language that could potentially drag wrestlers back into WWE after they try to leave, the entire structure of WWE contracts under TKO is starting to look completely different than what talent dealt with even a few years ago. And if this language becomes the new standard, future free agency in wrestling may never work the same way again.
Do you think TKO’s contract changes go too far, or is this just the reality of billion-dollar wrestling companies protecting their business? Drop your thoughts below and let us know.
Please credit Ringside News if you use the above transcript in your publication.
2 hours ago
Disqus Comments Loading...