The ongoing uncertainty surrounding Andrade El Idolo’s AEW status just got even more complex, as a well-known legal analyst has raised questions about whether WWE’s recently updated non-compete policy could actually hold up under U.S. law.
During a new interview with Lucha Libre Online, legal analyst Michael Morales offered an in-depth breakdown of WWE and TKO Group Holdings’ reported 2025 contract framework. Under this new system, the companies reserve the right to enforce a one-year non-compete clause for any talent released “for cause” — meaning a firing tied to a rule violation or disciplinary breach.
While that policy may sound standard for WWE, Morales argued that there’s a major legal catch many might overlook. He said,
“Six months to two years is considered reasonable under Connecticut, Florida, and U.S. federal law. Non-compete clauses aren’t forever — they have to be for a specific, reasonable period. One year is a rational contractual penalty; you agreed to it when you signed. But note: it’s not that you’ll go a year without pay. WWE, for one reason or another — depending on the contract — must provide fair compensation during that period. You can’t have a non-compete without compensation. Otherwise, it’s technically slavery, and slavery isn’t legal in the U.S. or anywhere else.”
The discussion gained traction because of Andrade El Idolo’s current situation, which reportedly involves a 90-day unpaid non-compete as part of his AEW exit. This has prompted speculation among fans and insiders about whether AEW’s own policy aligns with standard labor law or if Andrade is being left in limbo without pay or contractual protection.
Morales clarified that a non-compete clause only applies after a contract has ended — not during a suspension or disciplinary period — and that workers must be compensated for any time they are restricted from working elsewhere. He stated,
“If you’re under a non-compete clause, you’re in a non-contractual status — your contract ended. Different is a 90-day suspension without pay — that’s still under contract. If there’s a non-compete clause, you’re no longer under contract, just bound by that penalty. So, if you’re suspended 90 days without pay, you’re still employed — you come back after. But if it’s a non-compete, the contract is over, and you must be compensated for that restricted period.”
Morales went a step further, emphasizing that any attempt to enforce a one-year unpaid non-compete would be considered outright illegal in the United States. He added,
“If it’s a full year without pay, that’s illegal. This isn’t Central Africa, where weird laws exist — this is the United States, and that’s illegal. You must pay for that one-year non-compete period.”
He added that WWE can still legally impose a one-year restriction if they provide ongoing pay during that time — essentially converting the non-compete period into a paid contractual hold.
“So again: WWE can impose the one-year clause, but they must pay for it. If they tell Andrade, ‘Your contract’s still active; you’ll sit out three months unpaid, then nine months paid’ — that’s legal. Technicalities make all the difference.”
According to multiple sources close to the situation, Andrade has already secured legal representation in anticipation of a potential dispute, and Morales’ analysis could bolster his case if the matter escalates into a formal challenge.
A successful court case against AEW — or any wrestling company — could have major ripple effects across the industry, potentially forcing WWE, AEW, and TNA to restructure or redefine how non-compete clauses are written and enforced in talent contracts.
For now, Andrade’s future remains uncertain, but if Morales’ interpretation holds true, the fallout from this case could reshape how wrestlers negotiate freedom, compensation, and contractual restrictions in the wrestling landscape.
