Andrade’s return to AEW last month has been stalled abruptly due to WWE reportedly enforcing a controversial one-year non-compete clause following his September release. The situation not only raised eyebrows among wrestling fans but also sparked debate about the legality and motives behind WWE’s decision to block Andrade from working elsewhere for an extended period.
Background: Andrade’s Release and Immediate AEW Return
Andrade was released by WWE in mid-September, with reports citing disciplinary reasons for his termination. Soon after, he signed with AEW and made a surprise appearance on the October 1 episode of Dynamite, attacking Kenny Omega and aligning with the Don Callis Family. However, despite that impactful debut, Andrade has not appeared on AEW programming since, and he has been omitted from AEW’s official roster listings. This silence is widely attributed to WWE activating a non-compete clause in his WWE contract[1][2].
The One-Year Non-Compete Clause: WWE’s Leverage Tool?
While WWE traditionally enforces a standard 90-day non-compete period post-release—a timeframe during which talent remains under contract and continues to be paid—Andrade’s case appears different. Sources suggest his release was “with cause” due to a disciplinary breach, triggering a stricter contractual clause that could prevent him from wrestling anywhere for up to one full year without compensation[1][2][4].
David Otunga, a former WWE star and practicing lawyer, explained on his YouTube channel how WWE’s non-compete clauses include a “Covenant Not to Compete” that is unusually broad. According to Otunga, WWE contracts empower the company to bar a wrestler from performing, training, or consulting for any other wrestling promotion worldwide for 12 months after their contract ends—even if fired without cause—and without paying them during this period[5][6].
“Under this non-compete clause, technically, WWE could fire a talent one day and then say, ‘We’re not going to pay you for a year, and you can’t wrestle anywhere else for that year.’ That’s what Andrade is facing,” Otunga said. Despite this, he questions the enforceability of such a clause in a U.S. court, calling it potentially illegal due to the lack of compensation[5].
Legal and Ethical Challenges to WWE’s Stance
Experts in wrestling law and contract analysis argue that enforcing a full-year unpaid non-compete clause could be challenged successfully in court. Contract law in many U.S. jurisdictions mandates compensation during enforceable restriction periods; otherwise, such clauses are often deemed overly restrictive or void[3][5]. The argument centers on whether wrestlers are truly independent contractors or de facto employees, with WWE’s tight control over talent further complicating claims made in their contracts.
A law expert on wrestling contracts summarized the issue: “If WWE tries to enforce a one-year non-compete without paying Andrade, it’s likely illegal in the U.S. You can’t hold someone out of work for that long without compensation”[3].
WWE’s Possible Motives: Strategy Beyond Andrade
A backstage source close to company operations theorized that WWE may be using Andrade’s non-compete enforcement as a broader strategic maneuver. “This isn’t just about Andrade; WWE is sending a message to AEW and other promotions. They want to show they can control talent movement and protect their investment,” the insider commented.
There’s also speculation, including from Otunga, that WWE might be leveraging Andrade’s situation in relation to other wrestlers, possibly hinting at creative returns or contract negotiations involving stars like Adam Copeland (Edge). By holding Andrade off AEW television, WWE gains uncertain leverage, potentially influencing AEW’s talent plans or disrupting their storyline efforts[5].
Implications for Andrade and the Industry
For Andrade personally, this non-compete enforcement means a prolonged absence from televised wrestling, denying him income and momentum gained from his AEW debut. Fans and analysts worry this could negatively affect his career trajectory during what should be his wrestling prime.
More broadly, Andrade’s case highlights the opaque, sometimes punitive nature of contract clauses in wrestling, raising concerns about talent rights in the current wrestling landscape. New WWE/TKO contracts reportedly include these extended non-compete provisions as standard boilerplate if a talent is fired under disciplinary grounds, setting a precedent other promotions may either emulate or challenge legally[4][7].
What’s Next for Andrade?
As of now, Andrade remains off AEW TV, with no updates on a legal resolution or lifting of the non-compete clause. Tony Khan, AEW’s president, has remained tight-lipped but hinted in past comments that the promotion respects contractual realities while seeking to advocate for its talent.
A wrestling legal analyst summarized the uncertainty: “If Andrade challenges WWE in court, he has a strong case due to the contradictory nature of independent contractor status and restrictive clauses. But legal battles take time and money — meanwhile, Andrade’s career is on hold.”[5]
The wrestling world will closely watch how this unfolds. Whether WWE doubles down on aggressive contract enforcement or a negotiation/free agency breakthrough occurs, Andrade’s struggle could redefine how non-competes are handled in pro wrestling’s evolving business environment.
Backstage quote:
“This move by WWE is as much about sending a message to AEW as it is about Andrade himself. They want to control the narrative and the talent pipeline tightly,” a WWE insider shared with PWMania.
This high-profile case underscores the growing tension between top wrestling promotions regarding talent rights and contract freedoms, and it raises important questions about the balance of power in professional wrestling today.