WWE’s Old Contracts Could Block Wrestlers From Working for a Year Without Pay But That May No Longer Be the Case

Andrade’s situation with WWE and AEW has sparked new attention on just how restrictive WWE contracts used to be. During a recent discussion about his status, former WWE star David Otunga claimed that WWE’s non-compete clauses once allowed the company to fire talent and stop them from wrestling anywhere else for a full year—without paying them a dime.

In a video posted to his YouTube channel, Otunga explained that such a clause could legally prevent wrestlers from working while offering them no compensation in return.

“Under this non-compete clause, technically, a talent could sign a contract, WWE could turn around the next day and fire them for no cause, and then say, ‘Hey, we’re not going to pay you for one year and you can’t wrestle anywhere else for one year.’ This is in the contract. This would be enforceable, presuming this contract is valid.”

Otunga argued that if such a clause were ever challenged in court, a judge would likely strike it down, since it unfairly prevents wrestlers from earning a living.

“The fact that you’re preventing somebody from working to support themselves in their given field for an entire year and you’re not compensating them, that right there… it has to be equal on both sides. In this situation, the talent would be giving up their right to earn a living in exchange for nothing.”

However, during the October 23, 2025 episode of Wrestling Observer Radio, Dave Meltzer and Bryan Alvarez discussed Otunga’s comments and clarified that the one-year unpaid non-compete clause was part of Otunga’s personal WWE contract, not necessarily the standard for today’s talent under the TKO era.

“Actually, you’re wrong there. And you know why? He looked at his own contract. And in his own contract, that is what it said.”

Bryan Alvarez responded that such terms were no longer common practice.

“That was the old WWE. These are the TKO contracts. These are different contracts.”

Meltzer added that while Otunga’s experience was accurate for his time in WWE, most current contracts have 90-day non-compete clauses instead of year-long restrictions.

“Yeah, but it may be that they—but usually it’s just a 90-day thing if you get fired.”

In short, Otunga’s warning reflects how harsh WWE’s older deals could be, but Meltzer and Alvarez made it clear that modern TKO-era contracts appear to be more lenient—at least when it comes to how long talent are kept off the market after being released.

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