Brock Lesnar filed a lawsuit against WWE earlier today.

There had been talk that he was going to file the suit this week but it was never confirmed. Some talk going around is that he was claiming they were preventing him from making a living due to his no compete cause on his contract.

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.

(does the Happy-Dance on a counter top) Brock seems to forget a contract is an agreement under the law that is unbreakable. No judge on earth (with a brain) would award him the case.

Contracts are found to be unfair, and broken, every day in courts across the country.

If this does end up going to court, which I doubt, he would have a decent shot of winning. You can see similar cases in other pro sports, though it doesn't match exactly because other sports have player's unions that help individuals in arbitration. The most likely outcome would be a settlement outside of court, where Brock accepts less to work for WWE, or they let him go under certain conditions. (i.e. can't work in the US for X numberof years...)

The problem is the length. Five years is a bit much and could be seen as unfair.

Brock shouldn't have signed that paper.

Technically, Brock has no legs in court, but I'd just like to see him wrestle/fight so damn WWE better free him.

Also, WWE has wanted him to come back for a reduced price, thus not honoring the terms of the original contract.

The agreement doesn't keep him from working for WWE. It says any COMPETITION in Professional Wrestling (or Shoot Fighting).

Happens all the time. Courts find contracts unfair all the time.

Vince is keeping him from working with WWE.

I'd say he has a good shot at winning in court. He has several things going for him:

1. He's not being paid.
2. Other workers have been allowed to work in Japan while still getting paid for their no compete clause.
3. The terms of the contract are unreasonable. You can't keep someone from working for over 5 years if you won't be paying them.

He signed the contract... he wasn't forced to with a gun put to his head.

Judge: Mr. Lesnar, if you wanted to work somewhere else, why did you sign the contract in the first place?

Brock: Duh....

Judge: Case dismissed.

I know Scott Keith isn't the most well liked person, but what he said is basically my opinion, except I doubt Lesnar didn't make the NFL because he sucked, but because he hadn't played in like 7 years and had no training for it.

According to the Torch and 1wrestling, which admittedly haven't been terribly reliable lately vis a vis the UPN thing, Brock Lesnar is suing his former slavedrivers, looking for emancipation from the no-compete clause he stupidly signed when they threw all that money at him in the first place. Well, boo hoo. This is one time where I side with the draconian lawyers of the WWE -- he wanted out of a big contract to get away from wrestling and play football, they let him go (very magnanimously by WWE standards, I should add), and then he changed his mind when he wasn't any good at THAT. Logic would dictate that he couldn't make anywhere near the money elsewhere, unless Japan is throwing some crazy cash at him, but still -- if you don't want to play by their rules, don't sign the contract. Pretty simple.

Actually yes he was. This was the only way for him to leave the WWF.

I'm done with repeating myself, but it happens all the time. Judges do let guys out of their contracts, even though the guy signed it. Prove me wrong....by the way, I'm right.

You're done? Good. He signed a contract that no one with half of a brain would sign, even drunk, high on crack, and with a gun to their head.

Technically, Brock screwed himself by signing the contract (an agreement enforced by the law), and now he's hoping to get a very nice Judge who will side with him.

2010 is a bit shitty though. (says to 194 people who said Brocks no-compete clause ends this Spring "I told you so")

The only thing holding Brock back is that he's not prevented from making a living, just from making a living in professional fighting. This is very similar to the Maurice Clarett case in that regard. WWE isn't preventing him from makin a living, just from making a living as a professional wrestler/fighter. The same way that the NFL wasn't preventing Clarett from making a living, just making a living in the NFL.

Actually the NFL wasn't preventing Clarrett from playing football for money. His case was more of a "You have a right to work just not a right to make 5 million dollars doing it."

He still had the CFL and Arena league to play in.

Ahh, very good point.

If Brock had any considerable talent outside of Wrestling (didn't he go to College? He must have a degree in something) he wouldn't be in this predicament.

Actually, he does have considerable athletic talent. He just barely missed the Vikings practice squad. He would just like to do something to help him make money so he can provide for his daughter.

Then why the heck did he quit a Multi-Million Dollar job in the first place? (I know, he wanted to follow his "Dream")

Even if he did make it onto the Vikings squad, he probably would've been making the league minimum (which is probably far, far, far less than what WWE paid him), unless the Practice Squad makes less than the 3rd string bench warmers.

Make 1 frigging point to back your argument, just one.

You hate Brock, as stated before, and you are taking this opportunity to practice that hate rather than take part in a reasonable discussion.

So again, what's the legal precedent to your claim that no right-minded judge would let him out of his contract?

IT'S A CONTRACT WRITTEN UP BY THE WWE LEGAL DEPARTMENT, NOT A FUCKING 2 YEAR OLD! The law is 100% on WWE's side here. Brock signed a legal fucking document. Is that so hard to fucking understand?

Here's what Keller says:

Brock Lesnar signed a document that said he can't perform in another wrestling group or fight with an "ultimate fighting" group worldwide until June 2010. He can read, he signed it, he wasn't coerced or under duress. It should be an open and shut case; otherwise, what is the value of a signature on an official document if nine months later he can hire a lawyer and have it invalidated, right?

There is more to it. The big catch that is revealed in the lawsuit that could change everything in Brock's favor is that had Brock just stopped showing up for work, he would have only been bound by a one year no compete clause. And that clause would have only applied to pro wrestling in the U.S., not all forms of wrestling and fighting worldwide.

Brock Lesnar, no. 69 at Vikings preseason workout (photo by Wade Keller, PWTorch)
A judge might rule that WWE's standard contract with the one year clause is a better representation of what WWE truly believes is a fair amount of time for a contractor to sit out before working for a competitor. The six year duration might seem excessive to a judge.

The part of the Lesnar lawsuit that lacks credibility is his contention that he can't earn a living at the only thing he knows due to the no compete clause. First, the obvious - why sign the document in the first place? Second, he can earn a living doing many things, most obviously playing pro football. Probably not in the NFL, but he could probably make it on an Arena Football, NFL Europe, or Canadian Football League team. He might not earn the seven figures he hopes to make in Japan should his WWE clause be invalidated, but he can earn a decent living outside of wrestling/fighting. If not, he's 27 with name value. He could also work a normal job in a factory or office, plus make a little cash on the side doing endorsement deals in Minnesota. He has many options. The lawsuit would make it seem like it's "wrestle or be homeless."

He chose to walk away from a $1 million per year guaranteed downside contract with six years left on it. The fact that he had that deal, and volunteered to get out of it, doesn't mean he has a right to earn $1 million no matter what if his NFL dreams didn't pan out. WWE has a right to protect its interests. They promoted him as a top star in part because they had no fear he would go anywhere for six years. They might have invested less in him and more in others had they feared he wouldn't fulfill his contract.

The lawsuit also contends there aren't "any meaningful competitors in the business of professional wrestling in North America" now that WCW is out of business. Two things. One, that's not true. Brock Lesnar's presence on TNA PPVs would be a huge boost to WWE's main competitor. TNA, with monthly Sunday night PPVs and a clearance on a national sports cable channel with three airings each weekend, is a "meaningful competitor." Their buyrates are one-sixth of WWE's worst PPV buyrates, but they're one superstar of Lesnar's stature away from potentially tripling those buyrates instantly. If TNA anted up $1 million a year to sign Brock, or even half of that for 36 dates per year, giving Brock a chance to also earn more money overseas between TNA dates, TNA would be making the best move yet to give themselves a chance to really get on the map in the eyes of many current WWE fans.

WWE has a lot to lose if Brock were to sign with TNA. Two, WWE also has a lot to lose if Brock began working for a wrestling or fighting group in Japan. WWE wants to run more shows in Japan, and WWE wants to work with other existing groups in Japan. Lesnar, due to his NCAA credentials and WWE stardom, is considered a star in Japan. His working for a non-WWE group does give a competitor a "WWE star" to use to draw fans instead of the WWE using him to draw fans. There are also several instances over the past 15 years of Japan promotions making inroads on PPV in the U.S., be it New Japan wrestlers working for WCW and presenting shows on PPV, UWFI and Pride airing on U.S. PPV, and Japanese Hardcore PPVs. Because WWE runs shows in Japan, and because Japan promotions sell their events on PPV in the U.S., there is a reasonable case WWE can make that overseas promotions are competition.

Lesnar's case rests mainly on the fact that had he just stopped showing up for work, he would be able to work anywhere starting this April and that he'd already be free to begin working in Japan right now. Working against him is that he voluntarily signed away six years in his rush to leave WWE for the NFL without facing the complications of a "contract breach" legal situation.

In Lesnar's favor are past court decisions, such as Young v. Meyer, 1989, a Minnesota Court of Appeals case which reduced a three-year non-compete agreement to 18 months because it felt the no-compete clause was "unreasonable." A legal commentator, William Christopher Penwell, commented in 2002 that a general rule of thumb for non-competes is one year from the date of separation, but it could be as short as six months or as long as two or three years, based on circumstances. However, there have been other cases, including in Connecticut where Lesnar filed the lawsuit, that have upheld longer no compete clauses. Scott v. General Iron & Welding Co. in 1976 upheld a five year statewide covenant barring a former employee from working as a manager for a competing business.

The key to interpretting the validity of the no compete clause is that it should seem to be of a duration and scope that protects the interests of both parties in reasonable fashion. A judge will decide, unless a settlement is reached earlier, whether WWE's worldwide ban on all related forms of sports entertainment (pro wrestling and ultimate fighting/MMA) for six years is reasonable. If not, it could be cut down to one year or less, or it could be split in half with a three-year limitation on working pro wrestling in the U.S. but no limit on ultimate fighting.
----------

Oh, and CB-Chill out.

I'm sorry if I understand what a contract is and how it's legally binding. Was the contract unreasonable? Yes, but the only way I can see him winning is maybe a shortened-term of no-compete. Otherwise, he's fucked because he didn't think long-term.

I'm just going to close this because the discussion has gotten pretty pointless with nothing new being said.