## Facts

- The World Football League (WFL) was a newly formed professional football league seeking to compete with the National Football League (NFL).
- Dallas Cowboys Football Club, Inc. (Cowboys) employed players under existing NFL player contracts.
- The WFL sent a letter and a return postcard to Cowboys players who were under contract to the Cowboys.
- The letter announced the WFL’s formation and stated the WFL “feels strongly that every player should honor his present contractual obligation.”
- The letter also stated the WFL wanted to speak with players who might be interested in playing in the WFL “at the expiration of [their] present contract.”
- The enclosed postcard requested the player’s contact information and asked whether the player was interested in hearing an offer from the WFL.
- After these communications, three Cowboys players signed agreements with WFL teams that were to begin only after the players’ Cowboys/NFL contracts expired.
- The Cowboys sued the WFL for tortious interference with contractual relations, alleging the WFL was “raiding” Cowboys players and interfering with performance of existing contracts.
- The Cowboys sought and obtained a temporary injunction restraining the WFL from entering into contracts with Cowboys players under contract and from inducing breaches and related conduct during the contract term.
- The WFL appealed the temporary injunction by interlocutory appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting a temporary injunction on the Cowboys’ claim of tortious interference with player contracts.
2. Whether contacting players under contract and signing agreements for services to begin after the existing contracts end, without evidence of inducement to breach, can support injunctive relief for tortious interference.
3. Whether the Cowboys proved a probable right to recovery and a probable injury justifying a temporary injunction.

## Decision

- The Court of Civil Appeals of Texas (Dallas) reversed the order granting the temporary injunction.
- The court held the evidence did not show tortious interference (or a threat of it) because the WFL’s communications urged players to honor their current obligations and the WFL contracts were effective only after the Cowboys contracts expired.
- The court dissolved the temporary injunction because the Cowboys did not establish a probable right of recovery or probable injury required for temporary injunctive relief.

## Legal Principles

- A temporary injunction is reviewed for abuse of discretion; the applicant must show (1) a probable right to recover and (2) probable injury if the injunction is not granted.
- Tortious interference with contract requires more than competitive recruiting; it requires intentional, wrongful interference—commonly shown by inducing a party to breach or by other improper means.
- Entering into an agreement for future services to begin after an existing contract expires is not, by itself, tortious interference with the existing contract.
- Where the challenged communications expressly tell contract parties to perform their current obligations, and the record lacks evidence of inducement to breach or other wrongful conduct, a temporary injunction is not supported.

## Conclusion

The appellate court dissolved the temporary injunction because the Cowboys’ evidence showed only that the WFL solicited interest and signed certain players to contracts commencing after their Cowboys contracts ended, while also telling players to perform their current obligations; without evidence of inducement to breach or other wrongful interference, the Cowboys failed to show a probable right to recover or probable injury necessary for temporary injunctive relief.


World Football League v. Dallas Cowboys Football Club, Inc., 513 S.W.2d 102 (1974)