WWE Allegedly Doesn’t Actually Have a 90-Day Non-Compete Clause

For years, fans and wrestlers alike have treated WWE’s “90-day non-compete clause” as a standard part of contract exits. But according to former WWE Superstar and lawyer David Otunga, that clause doesn’t technically exist — at least not in writing.

Speaking with Ariel Helwani on November 19, Otunga broke down what he discovered while reviewing WWE contracts — and what he found completely changes the narrative.

“In the contract that I looked at when preparing for this, there’s just a one-year. It doesn’t say anything about 90 days or anything like that. It’s a one-year non-compete. However, it’s up to WWE’s discretion because it can be up to one year.”

That’s right — the 90-day non-compete fans always talk about? It’s not actually in the contract. It’s just been WWE’s usual practice to release talent and hold them for 90 days. But Otunga made it clear that this timeline is not guaranteed.

“So people just assume it’s a 90-day non-compete. But you actually go and look at the contract. It doesn’t say anything in there about 90 days. It says one year.”

This came up in a conversation about Andrade El Idolo, who made a surprise AEW appearance after his WWE release — only to disappear after reports of a cease and desist from WWE. According to Otunga, Andrade’s contract allowed WWE to enforce a full one-year ban, which they’re doing now without pay — something Otunga had never seen before.

“This is the first time I ever recall WWE wanted to enforce this. They enforced this against Andrade for an entire year without pay.”

And while Otunga believes Andrade could win if he challenged it in court, the cost and effort are steep.

“I think if Andrade wanted to challenge this in court, I think he’d likely be successful, to be honest with you. But that’s quite a headache and an endeavor in and of itself.”

WWE’s contracts also lock talent into arbitration and keep disputes out of public courts — making it even harder for talent to fight back. But now that the language is getting attention, wrestlers and legal experts are starting to ask whether WWE can continue this approach under the new TKO regime.

If there’s no written 90-day clause, and WWE can enforce a one-year non-compete at will, every wrestler under contract could be one decision away from a full year on the shelf.

Should WWE be allowed to enforce one-year bans without pay if it’s not a fixed standard? Is this fair to talent or a massive overreach? Sound off in the comments and tell us what you think about WWE’s contract game.

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