TPWW Forums

TPWW Forums (https://www.tpwwforums.com/index.php)
-   wrestling forum (https://www.tpwwforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=10)
-   -   Pay during No-Compete Clause (https://www.tpwwforums.com/showthread.php?t=105179)

BollywoodSingh 07-31-2010 05:19 PM

Pay during No-Compete Clause
 
I don't know how severance pay works in the US or if it would even apply to a wrestling company, but when WWE releases a wrestler, they usually have a 90-day no-compete clause. I was wondering if WWE still pays the wrestler for those 90 days?

The Pope 07-31-2010 05:25 PM

Yes, That's the whole reason a wrestler accepts that contract. You get paid to sit on your ass and do nothing.

Xero 08-02-2010 01:17 AM

Well, that, and if you don't accept it you don't get signed.

Destro 2.0 08-02-2010 02:02 AM

So Paul London must have loved it he could sit at home an smoke all the weed he wanted too. Thank god he never had to lay on the bear skin rug. If you watch there shoot interview you will get what i am talking about.

Jakob Synn 08-02-2010 06:03 AM

I don't think for their 90 day no-compete clause that they get paid by the WWE because one would think that the WWE puts that in every wrestlers contract now-a-days.

Though if you get fired from certain jobs they do give you severence depending on how long you've worked there, so who knows.

I'm going to say it depends on the wrestler.

Hanso Amore 08-02-2010 04:14 PM

No.

A Standard No Compete Clause is used in alot of work places. Like at my office the sales guys sign a 1 year clause meaning if they leave the company they cannot work for a competitor or start their own competing business for 1 year.

Same in the WWE. You can work anywhere for 90 days but wrestling.

Xero 08-02-2010 06:31 PM

WWE's 90 day no compete is paid.

It might be the equivalent of severance, I'm not sure, but I know they're paid.

The clause only goes into effect if they're fired. If the contract runs out there is no non-compete.

Lock Jaw 08-03-2010 01:13 AM

Isn't the no-compete clause only for appearing on televised or PPVed wrestling? Or did they just make an exception for Daniel Bryan because they felt bad about it?

The Pope 08-03-2010 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Destro 2.0 (Post 3181661)
So Paul London must have loved it he could sit at home an smoke all the weed he wanted too. Thank god he never had to lay on the bear skin rug. If you watch there shoot interview you will get what i am talking about.

So Vince McMahon basically paid for his weed then.

Destro 2.0 08-03-2010 02:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr.Perfect (Post 3182765)
So Vince McMahon basically paid for his weed then.

Yeah a pretty sweet deal if you ask me. Has anyone seen the previews for Project: Paul London on Highspots. No pun intended.

Xero 08-03-2010 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lock Jaw (Post 3182761)
Isn't the no-compete clause only for appearing on televised or PPVed wrestling? Or did they just make an exception for Daniel Bryan because they felt bad about it?

Danielson is only appearing on non-televised and shows. The normal deal is they need to get permission to work anywhere else and it can't be televised.

Aguakate 08-06-2010 10:58 PM

I think they get paid, otherwise WWE would be violating SOME kind of law by not letting a person earn an income.

Kane Knight 08-08-2010 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aguakate (Post 3188599)
I think they get paid, otherwise WWE would be violating SOME kind of law by not letting a person earn an income.

Wrong.

Xero 08-08-2010 02:42 PM

How insightful.

The Pope 08-08-2010 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aguakate (Post 3188599)
I think they get paid, otherwise WWE would be violating SOME kind of law by not letting a person earn an income.

True, but the main reason for the contract is to not allow the person just fired to appear for the competition in the near future.

VonErichLives 08-08-2010 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kane Knight (Post 3189910)
Wrong.

Depends, they're enforced differently on different levels on a state by state basis.

some times there is a financial compensation if the company terminates your employment not for any wrong doing of the employee.

The Mackem 08-09-2010 05:23 AM

How WWE gets away with what they do to their 'independent contractors' still confuses me to this day. An independent contractor exclusive to a company. I wonder what TNA's approach is. Actually they probably don't know who they are hiring.

VonErichLives 08-09-2010 10:51 AM

There is a fair chance if a wrestler contacted the IRS and challenged it, they might get in trouble.

That said, there is a fine line and a lot of "IC" actually prefer the 1099's because it allows them more liberals with tax write-offs and deductions.

Real estate agents, mortgage lenders and lots of other sales positions are the same.

Hanso Amore 08-09-2010 01:50 PM

They sign a contract

"We will pay you this much salary, and if you are terminated you cannot appear in Wrestling for 90 days"

They agree to it, there is no law against it, and it is common in all business.

VonErichLives 08-09-2010 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hanso (Post 3192278)
They sign a contract

"We will pay you this much salary, and if you are terminated you cannot appear in Wrestling for 90 days"

They agree to it, there is no law against it, and it is common in all business.

again, this varies by state.

VonErichLives 08-09-2010 02:01 PM

unless there was a recent change California was one state that did not allow non-competes to be enforced.

A lot of places get away with it because workers don't know their rights and just follow it.

VonErichLives 08-09-2010 02:02 PM

http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-08-0...e-s-high-court

Hanso Amore 08-09-2010 02:49 PM

It should only matter where the Company headquarters is in. Any WWE contract signed should only be subject to Connecticut law.

The Pope 08-09-2010 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hanso (Post 3192349)
It should only matter where the Company headquarters is in. Any WWE contract signed should only be subject to Connecticut law.

Agreed.

Kane Knight 08-09-2010 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hanso (Post 3192278)
They sign a contract

"We will pay you this much salary, and if you are terminated you cannot appear in Wrestling for 90 days"

They agree to it, there is no law against it, and it is common in all business.

There are laws against it, and enforcement is tricky when you cross state lines.

However, I mostly wanted to snidely remark "but...but that's unfair!"

VonErichLives 08-09-2010 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hanso (Post 3192349)
It should only matter where the Company headquarters is in. Any WWE contract signed should only be subject to Connecticut law.

and had you said

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hanso (Post 3192278)
They sign a contract in Connecticut

"We will pay you this much salary, and if you are terminated you cannot appear in Wrestling for 90 days"

They agree to it, there is no law against it, and it is common in all business.

but it seemed some people were making generalizations about the law which is simply not true.

That said, yes, we'll assume it's legal in CT, also their contract probably also stipulates any law suites or challenges etc... to the contract must be filed in CT to cover themselves.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:20 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®