WWE Accused of Abusing One-Sided Contracts Amid Andrade Non-Compete Drama

Andradeâ€s AEW return may have lit a spark, but WWE was quick to pour cold water on it—and now the real heat is coming from someone whoâ€s been watching it all unfold with a critical eye.

Stevie Richards didnâ€t hold back during a recent episode of The Stevie Richards Show, where he slammed WWEâ€s controversial use of one-year non-compete clauses, especially in Andradeâ€s case. According to Richards, WWE is manipulating its power and contract language to keep talent from gaining traction elsewhere—even if it means keeping them sidelined without a paycheck.

“A one-year no-compete, though, man, thatâ€s beyond the pale, especially when we still argue to this day — are they independent contractors or are they employees? Theyâ€re independent contractors when itâ€s convenient for WWE; theyâ€re employees when itâ€s even more convenient for WWE. WWE wants to abuse this clause whenever they want to, especially with Andrade.â€

Richards believes WWEâ€s “just cause†clause is way too vague and easily exploitable. He pointed out that even something as minor as disagreeing with a storyline could be twisted into grounds for punishment.

“What constitutes just cause? What if somebody refuses to do a storyline thatâ€s against their morals or character? WWE could call that insubordination and use it to ban them for a year. Can this be manipulated by the company? Oh, absolutely.â€

He also likened WWEâ€s strategy to the NFLâ€s morality clause but argued that WWE takes it even further by silencing and freezing talent under the guise of policy.

“Everybody manipulates this type of morality clause in the NFL. If you send out a tweet or anything happens that they donâ€t like, they can suspend you or ban you. This makes the professional wrestling contract, somehow — and I didnâ€t think it was possible — even more one-sided in favor of the promoter and not the talent.â€

According to Richards, itâ€s not just about wrestling. WWEâ€s grip could even stop Andrade from branching into MMA or Hollywood, thanks to the intentionally vague contract language.

“If Andrade even wanted to do MMA, heâ€s not allowed to do that. It encompasses anything combat sport or even entertainment… Say you wanted to be an action star — isnâ€t that considered a mix between entertainment and combat sports?â€

Andrade reportedly has legal representation on standby, and thereâ€s speculation that WWEâ€s non-compete clause could be challenged in court, especially if theyâ€re withholding pay. If the clause is ruled unenforceable under U.S. labor law, it could blow a massive hole in WWEâ€s contract model.

Richards closed by calling out what he sees as a blatant abuse of power meant to weaken stars†momentum before they can benefit another promotion.

“Itâ€s obviously set up so that in three months, in the wrestling universe, you lose a lot of steam. So, they do not want you going to a competing promotion… that actually, in itself, shows they want to protect the competition from capitalizing on any steam, push, or momentum that a talent had in WWE.â€

This isnâ€t just about Andrade—itâ€s about the entire power dynamic between WWE and its talent. Wrestlers are increasingly expected to live with zero leverage while WWE maintains all the control.

This could be the legal battle that opens the door for change—or just another example of how deep WWEâ€s grip on its performers really runs.

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

Do you think WWEâ€s contract system is due for a complete overhaul? Please share your thoughts and feedback in the comment section below.

Source link