8 Times WWE's Rules Didn't Apply To Brock Lesnar
4. Destroying The No-Compete Clause
WWE's use of 90-day non-compete clauses is controversial. They're written into almost every performer's contract, and effectively decree that they can't work elsewhere for the agreed length of time, destroying any departee's ability to make a living. They usually stick, though. The list of wrestlers who've successfully challenged the clause is minuscule, and WWE persist with them as a means of protecting their position by ensuring competitors must wait before going after anyone they release.
Lesnar's non-compete was more restrictive than most. His prevented him from working for another wrestling promotion for six years after leaving WWE, which would've meant 2010. Unsurprisingly, this extreme term didn't stand up in court.
'The Beast' tried to work around the clause by attempting to transition to the NFL, but couldn't land a spot on the Minnesota Vikings' roster. After this failure, Lesnar went legal, challenging the clause in court. WWE issued a counterclaim when Brock breached the non-compete by appearing for New Japan in 2004, but they dropped it by July 2005, and even offered him a new contract. Lesnar turned it down, and, finally free of the clause, opted to continue his career elsewhere.