## Facts

- The Cincinnati Bengals, Inc. employed linebacker William (“Bill”) Bergey under a standard, non-guaranteed NFL player contract paying slightly less than $40,000 per year, with contractual provisions the Bengals asserted gave continued control over his services, including a club option for 1975.
- While still under the Bengals contract, Bergey signed a “no-cut” three-year agreement with the World Football League’s Virginia Ambassadors for $125,000 per year plus a $150,000 signing bonus.
- The Ambassadors agreement was scheduled to begin in the 1976 season, but would begin earlier if the Bengals released Bergey.
- After learning of the future-services agreement, the Bengals offered Bergey a new five-year deal totaling $400,000; Bergey declined.
- The Bengals sued Bergey, the Virginia Ambassadors, the World Football League, and other WFL teams, claiming the WFL was “raiding” Bengals players by signing them—while still under Bengals contracts—to contracts for future services.
- The Bengals sought preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to prevent enforcement of Bergey’s WFL contract and to restrain similar WFL contracting with Bengals players.

## Issues

1. Whether a rival professional football league commits an actionable wrong by negotiating and signing a contract for a player’s future services to begin after expiration (or release) from the player’s existing club contract.
2. Whether the WFL and its teams tortiously interfered with the Bengals’ contractual rights by signing Bergey (and allegedly other Bengals players) to future-services contracts.
3. Whether the Bengals met the requirements for a preliminary injunction, including likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm.

## Decision

- The court denied the Bengals’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
- The court held it was not unlawful for the WFL club to negotiate and sign a contract for Bergey’s services to commence after his existing NFL contract expired (or upon earlier release).
- The court found the Bengals did not show the WFL defendants acted with malice or unlawful intent sufficient to support tortious interference.
- The court concluded the Bengals failed to make the showing required for the extraordinary remedy of preliminary injunctive relief.

## Legal Principles

- A third party may lawfully contract for a person’s future services to begin after the expiration (or lawful termination) of an existing employment contract, absent a showing that the agreement requires or induces a present breach.
- Tortious interference requires more than competitive hiring efforts; the plaintiff must show wrongful conduct, such as malice, unlawful intent, or improper means directed at causing breach or disruption of contractual rights.
- Preliminary injunctions require a strong showing on the merits and irreparable harm; speculative or competition-related harms are generally insufficient where the challenged conduct is lawful and the requested order would substantially burden the counterparty’s contractual and employment interests.

## Conclusion

The court refused to enjoin Bergey’s future-services agreement and related WFL contracting activity because the record showed lawful competition for post-expiration services rather than inducement of a present breach or malicious interference, and the Bengals did not satisfy the standards for preliminary injunctive relief.


Cincinnati Bengals, Inc. v. Bergey, 453 F. Supp. 129 (S.D. Ohio 1974)