>>7396163This is actually the most informed opinion in this thread. Wrestling contracts that have gone to legal tests in the past have been essentially thrown out. It is why Vince McMahon has always been extremely careful over what lawsuits he will fight and which he won't.
I think the entire idea of tortious interference in a wrestling contract is in itself something that would never stand a legal test. Possibly why nobody has ever tried to legally test it despite 100 years of wrestlers moving between companies. And if Tony Khan is gossiping about it rather than filing suit then I presume that his legal representation has said the same to him.
Tortious interference in wrestling doesn't even make sense on a basic level. The point of the law is to stop party X from helping person Y from breaching their contract with company Z.
Y asking Z for a release is not a breach of contract, nor can Z argue that X is attempting to harm their business interests by placing an offer to Y. Wrestlers are independent contractors and, as such, are able to take offers whenever they see fit.
AEW (Z in this case) would have to prove that X (the WWE) have a specific knowledge that Y (the wrestler) was in breach of contract and that that breach represented an attack on their business interests with intent. Even if Y no showed and turned up at a WWE event, they have to prove intent and purposeful malice to AEW from the WWE.
It's basically impossible to do because the wrestler is not a contracted employee, they are a subcontractor from their 1099 who actually employs them. So Joe Bloggs doesn't work for AEW, he works for Joe Bloggs Ltd who AEW have a contract with to supply labour. This means that WWE would have to get Joe Bloggs Ltd to breach contract and not Joe Bloggs the actual person. And offering Joe Bloggs a contract is not the same as offering Joe Bloggs Ltd a contract. This whole thing is a nothing burger.
