This may or may not be good for the industries that you mentioned because it would require promotions who engage in non-compete clauses to make sweet deals to their fighters if they get a good counter-offer. Also, I don't think it would get rid of exclusive contracts, just non-compete clauses which for some contracts means they can't sign or fight for a promotion for however amount of time after the conclusion of their contract. Examples, Brock Lesnar in his first WWE tenure had I think a two year non-compete pro wrestling clause which he beat in court to compete for New Japan. In MMA, Tito Ortiz shopped to Affliction, EliteXC and Strikeforce but couldn't actually sign with any of those promotions because of his non-compete clause in his contract. Another example of a non-compete clause in MMA would be Scott Coker who couldn't sign with Bellator after Strikeforce was folded because he had a non-compete clause. In several jurisdictions like California, there is no such thing as a non-compete clause and many states have them but enforcing them is extremely difficult. For example, there's a YouTube gaming channel called GirlsPlay who years ago had an issue when several of their former employees left and started posting videos when they were still within their non-compete clause time frame. The channel ended up taking the two of the former employees to court because there was an initial settlement that allowed them to start posting their own videos right away but the former employees didn't fulfill their end of the settlement.