If you ranked the top 500 US professional athletes by salary and looked at the median (#250, so as here, you’re only looking at the “S&P 250”), I’d be surprised if the result were radically different.

USA Today[1] helpfully has a ranked list of 2025 MLB salaries, and at #100 is Kyle Freeland of the Colorado Rockies, making $16M. Add in the NFL, NBA, NHL, MLS and finding another 150 athletes paid that or more should not be hard.

Top 500 Hollywood actors, directors, writers, producers, … same thing.

Not to mention the top 500 engineers in Silicon Valley.

It’s good to have your talents in demand.

[1] https://databases.usatoday.com/major-league-baseball-salarie...

▲

newsomix9xl 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I think in all of your examples those people actually perform to obtain their money.

In the example, CEO's might not perform at all: "The report noted that stock awards now make up the largest share of executive pay, allowing leaders to cash in on soaring valuations that may outpace a company's underlying performance."

And I think the average company in the S&P employs more people than, say, the Colorado Rockies (but I could be wrong, that's a guess).

But maybe the relative poverty of Americans who struggle can be attributed to overpaid actors, directors, and athletes too, to extend your argument?

	▲	twoodfin an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I’m not really sure what you’re asking. CEO’s of S&P 500 companies are absolutely expected to perform. Those that perform well ultimately end up at the top of the compensation list. Some who perform poorly are still compensated based on contracts signed due to expectations. This is, needless to say, true of athletes and movie stars as well. Also, yes, the CEO of the median S&P 500 company has a lot more money and livelihoods riding on his or her performance than the Colorado Rockies’ third baseman. So they should be paid less?