Dijak was asked by Forbes recently if he considers the way his time with WWE ended to be better than being released since that means the former WWE Superstar isn’t tied to a 90-day non-compete clause.
“There are pros and cons to both approaches. I think there’s a better way to do this… That isn’t a real contract, because they can just release you at any point for any reason. I think that’s silly nonsense. I don’t know why that’s allowed to be legal. It just feels illegal to me, and I feel like nobody’s taken the time and monetary effort to challenge the legality of it.”
Dijak also detailed not being told about the imminent expiration of his WWE contract, uninformed about it coming to an end until the day before it was happening. He points to other wrestlers, including Lacey Evans and Scrypts, who were given a month of notice by WWE that their deals were expiring and wouldn’t be renewed. While I’m unsure if they would have been allowed to start taking bookings elsewhere, they would have at least been able to test the waters and prepare for life after WWE.
In Dijak’s case, he was a WWE Superstar one day and then unemployed the next, told he was being let go with only hours of his contract remaining. As he says, not having a non-compete clause is both good and bad. Even though non-competes prevent released wrestlers from moving on, they continue to get a pay cheque for three months without having to do anything. Dijak doesn’t have that luxury, and although he could wrestle somewhere tonight if he liked,finding those bookings is easier said than done, especially when he’s likely still shellshocked by suddenly finding out he was losing his job.
+ There are no comments
Add yours