DRI
Jobber
Posts: 19
|
Post by DRI on Feb 8, 2005 0:44:57 GMT -5
Brock Lesnar's lawsuit against WWE claims that they are preventing him from working in his chosen field due to a no compete clause he signed last year shortly after WrestleMania. He decided he did not want to wrestle in WWE anymore because he didn't like the travel and wanted to pursue a dream of playing in the NFL.
He did make the preseason squad for the Minnesota Vikings, but ended up being cut before the season. He was not retained on the practice squad.
His no compete clause prevents him from working for any competitor, including other pro wrestling or professional fighting (i.e. UFC, Pride) organizations worldwide for the duration of the WWE contract he signed less than a year before asking for a release. That expiration date is June 30, 2010.
WWE sources indicate that Lesnar was making "ridiculous" demands regarding the terms of a return to WWE when he began calling them showing interest in returning in the last few months. WWE agreed to let Lesnar out of his contract because he was willing to sign a no compete, promising not to take the star power and equity WWE had given him through all of the TV time and wins over established names and help a competitor.
WWE's no compete clause includes the entire world, not just the U.S., because a competitor in Japan or any of the other countries WWE runs live events could use Lesnar to draw fans at a non-WWE event.
credit: pwtorch.com
|
|
|
Post by Marius on Feb 9, 2005 14:17:18 GMT -5
"That expiration date is June 30, 2010."
This would be the biggest thing to contest. A standard industry clause has been 90 days (from my understanding) and a typical maximum for any industry has been 2 years. I can see the clause being reduced in time.
"WWE's no compete clause includes the entire world, not just the U.S."
Because of WWE's activities around the World, including a recent tour of Japan this may be harder to contest. However many events are not PPV or Televised so this could be overturned as well. Don't expect him in North America anytime soon, however.
Either way Brock has a legitimate claim and will be up to the courts to decide how much of the clause will be enforcable. I can see this getting settled out of court or get real dirty, real fast.
|
|