AEW & The ‘Honoring The Contract’ Debate
Read Time:2 Minute, 46 Second
One of the most debated topics surrounding All Elite Wrestling (AEW) is their contract policy—particularly the staunch belief in honoring contracts until the very last day. This stance, while principled, has sparked widespread discussion, especially when compared to WWE’s handling of contracts. The current case of Rey Fenix exemplifies the complexities of this approach.
Rey’s situation gained significant attention when his brother, Penta El Zero Miedo, signed with WWE. Fenix, wanting to join his brother and compete on the biggest stage in professional wrestling, found his departure from AEW delayed due to injury-related contract extensions. AEW’s practice of adding time to contracts for injury absences—while not unique in wrestling—has prolonged his tenure with the company, creating frustration for both the wrestler and fans eager to see him move on.
The Debate
Should AEW allow wrestlers who wish to leave to do so immediately? Or does their policy of honoring contracts provide a fair and ethical framework for both parties?
AEW prides itself on being an alternative to WWE, often marketing itself as the more wrestler-friendly promotion. However, its refusal to release wrestlers early—even if they’re no longer featured on television—has drawn comparisons to WWE… A company often criticized for its own contract practices.
WWE is infamous for releasing talent before their contracts expire, sometimes citing budget cuts, and imposing 30- to 90-day non-compete clauses. While this approach provides wrestlers with a clean break, it also leaves them without income for the duration of the non-compete period. In contrast, AEW continues to pay wrestlers who are under contract. Even if they’re no longer being used in a prominent capacity. Former WWE wrestler, Thomas Pestock (previously known as Baron Corbin), has weighed in on the matter, expressing support for AEW’s policy. He praised their commitment to honoring contracts, contrasting it with WWE’s sometimes abrupt and unilateral releases. Pestock’s perspective highlights an important distinction: AEW’s policy, while restrictive, ensures financial security for its wrestlers.
Critics of AEW, however, argue that preventing wrestlers from leaving early—especially when they’ve expressed a clear desire to depart—undermines the promotion’s ethos of being the “antithesis” of WWE. Wrestlers unhappy with their situation might feel trapped, even if they’re still being compensated.
Should AEW Revise its Contract Policies?
On one hand, honoring contracts provides stability and protects wrestlers’ financial well-being. On the other, forcing wrestlers to stay against their wishes risks creating resentment and negative publicity.
A balanced solution could involve more flexibility in AEW’s contracts. Wrestlers who wish to leave early could be granted a release, provided they forgo the remaining financial compensation. Conversely, those who wish to honor their contracts until the last day should be allowed to do so without penalty.
As AEW continues to position itself as a wrestler-first promotion, it must navigate these complex issues carefully. Living up to its “anti-WWE” identity means more than just paying wrestlers. It means giving them autonomy over their careers, while maintaining the integrity of its business.
Whether AEW chooses to adapt its policies or stand firm in its current approach, one thing is certain… The handling of contracts will remain a critical talking point for fans, wrestlers, and the industry as a whole.
Happy
54 %
Sad
0 %
Excited
38 %
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
0 %
Surprise
8 %
About Post Author
Average Rating