News Forum - Pop singer Justin Bieber sells song rights for a cool US $200 million

[Thaiger]

Pop singer Justin Bieber has reportedly sold his song rights for a cool US$200 million.  Now, Hipgnosis Songs Capital will be the new owner of such international hits as “Baby” and “Sorry.” Agence France-Presse reported the sale amount, but Hipgnosis is staying tight-lipped for now. According to the BBC, the company has also acquired Bieber’s …

The story Pop singer Justin Bieber sells song rights for a cool US $200 million as seen on Thaiger News.

Read the full story

[Marc26]

That seems really low for such a young musician 

 

Especially since he already would have 100's of millions 

[longwood50]

It never ceases to amaze me how the public has no disgust for people like Floyd Mayweather earning $1.1 Billion in his career for being able to bludgeon someone else, or Peter Jackson's $560 earnings in just 2021 or in this case $200 million for song writes.  But in the next moment, chastize a business person who studied hard, got into a top business school, through performance rose to the top of his/her company and makes a multi million dollar salary running a company generating billions in profits and on whose success rides the employment of tens of thousands of people.  It is as they believe only a select few can bludgeon another human or through God's grace be granted the gift of song but a trained monkey can run a fortune 500 company. 

 

[Khunmark]

35 minutes ago, longwood50 said:

It never ceases to amaze me how the public has no disgust for people like Floyd Mayweather earning $1.1 Billion in his career for being able to bludgeon someone else, or Peter Jackson's $560 earnings in just 2021 or in this case $200 million for song writes.  But in the next moment, chastize a business person who studied hard, got into a top business school, through performance rose to the top of his/her company and makes a multi million dollar salary running a company generating billions in profits and on whose success rides the employment of tens of thousands of people.  It is as they believe only a select few can bludgeon another human or through God's grace be granted the gift of song but a trained monkey can run a fortune 500 company. 

Your disdain towards Mayweather and other athletes/entertainers is misdirected. The purse for his fights would be zilch if it wasn’t for the adoring masses. He’s just doing what he does and it turns out there’s a lucrative market for that. 

As for the self made billionaires; they are a broad church- some are lauded by the general public such as Branson and Buffet. Some are vilified such as Gates and the Koch brothers. The latter examples for divergent reasons.

As a general rule of thumb, how the super wealthy are viewed by the public has a lot to do with their level of philanthropy and their capacity to manage their public image.

[Marc26]

1 hour ago, longwood50 said:

It never ceases to amaze me how the public has no disgust for people like Floyd Mayweather earning $1.1 Billion in his career for being able to bludgeon someone else, or Peter Jackson's $560 earnings in just 2021 or in this case $200 million for song writes.  But in the next moment, chastize a business person who studied hard, got into a top business school, through performance rose to the top of his/her company and makes a multi million dollar salary running a company generating billions in profits and on whose success rides the employment of tens of thousands of people.  It is as they believe only a select few can bludgeon another human or through God's grace be granted the gift of song but a trained monkey can run a fortune 500 company. 

I think you lice in an imaginary world where everything is a gripe

But that's what most right wingers are like 

 

 

[HolyCowCm]

Say it isn’t so. Who cares now the guy is with $485 million and he can always muse more bubble gum music to make more money. 

[joseph]

Lice,...? Right wingers?

[longwood50]

On 1/26/2023 at 11:26 AM, Khunmark said:

Your disdain towards Mayweather and other athletes/entertainers is misdirected. The purse for his fights would be zilch if it wasn’t for the adoring masses. He’s just doing what he does and it turns out there’s a lucrative market for that. 

You miss the point.  I don't have disdain for Mayweather, atheletes or entertainers.  They are being paid based on what the marketplace says they are worth.  The same is true of Fortune 500 executives.  There is no gun to the head of companies to pay millions to a CEO.  

What I find hypocritical is that the general public has no outrage that Floyd Mayweather possesses the sole talent to beat someone elses brains in and somehow that is worth over $1 billion. 

However by contrast let someone study hard, get the grades required to get into a top business school, obtrain their degree and through performance in a company rise to the top of the firm, that generates billions in profits and employes hundreds of thousands of people, their skill is somehow worth only a pittance compared to Kim Kardashian.  

There are 130,000 actors in the screen actors guild.  There are 1,057 players in Major League Baseball.  There are 1,696 players in the National Football League.  

However there are only 500 Fortune 500 companies.  These people are the best of the best, but somehow the public believes that a trained monkey could do the job but if someone can jump through the air and dunk a basketball well that has extreme worth.  

[Marc26]

44 minutes ago, longwood50 said:

You miss the point.  I don't have disdain for Mayweather, atheletes or entertainers.  They are being paid based on what the marketplace says they are worth.  The same is true of Fortune 500 executives.  There is no gun to the head of companies to pay millions to a CEO.  

What I find hypocritical is that the general public has no outrage that Floyd Mayweather possesses the sole talent to beat someone elses brains in and somehow that is worth over $1 billion. 

However by contrast let someone study hard, get the grades required to get into a top business school, obtrain their degree and through performance in a company rise to the top of the firm, that generates billions in profits and employes hundreds of thousands of people, their skill is somehow worth only a pittance compared to Kim Kardashian.  

There are 130,000 actors in the screen actors guild.  There are 1,057 players in Major League Baseball.  There are 1,696 players in the National Football League.  

However there are only 500 Fortune 500 companies.  These people are the best of the best, but somehow the public believes that a trained monkey could do the job but if someone can jump through the air and dunk a basketball well that has extreme worth.  

Where exactly is this public outrage? Of course some will always have a gripe and it is a fact that CEO pay in the US is outrageously higher than in other countries

 

But go down this list and tell me where is the outrage? Most are celebrated

The only ones really critcized are bank, oil and airline CEO's and you could make the argument to criticize all of those 3 industries............

Although the #1 bank CEO is highly celebrated........

 

 

Best CEOs In The World Of 2022

Rank	Chief Executive Officer	Company	Country
1	Tim Cook	Apple	US
2	Satya Nadella	Microsoft	US
3	Sundar Pichai	Alphabet (Google)	US
4	Andy Jassy	Amazon	US
5	Elon Musk	Tesla	US
6	Mark Zuckerberg	Meta (Facebook)	US
7	Warren Buffett	Berkshire Hathaway	US
8	Dr. C.C. Wei	TSMC	Taiwan
9	Jensen Huang	Nvidia	US
10	Alfred F Kelly Jr	Visa Inc.	US
11	Jamie Dimon	JPMorgan Chase	US
12	Alex Gorsky	Johnson & Johnson	US
13	Doug McMillon	Walmart	US
14	Bernard Arnault	LVMH	France
15	Brian Moynihan	Bank of America	US
16	Ulf Mark Schneider	Nestle	Switzerland
17	Michael Miebach	Mastercard	US
18	David S. Taylor	Procter & Gamble	US
19	Andrew Witty	UnitedHealth Group	US
20	Amin H. Nasser	Saudi Aramco	Saudi Arabia
21	Ma Huateng	Tencent	China
22	Craig Menear	Home Depot	US
23	Daniel Zhang	Alibaba	China
24	Severin Schwan	Roche	Switzerland
25	Darren Woods	Exxon Mobil	US
26	Albert Bourla	Pfizer	US
27	Peter Wennink	ASML Holding	Netherlands
28	Akio Toyoda	Toyota	Japan
29	James Quincey	Coca-Cola	US
30	Bob Chapek	Walt Disney	US
31	Shantanu Narayen	Adobe	US
32	Michael Wirth	Chevron Corporation	US
33	Ramon Laguarta	Pepsi	US
34	Chuck Robbins	Cisco Systems	US
35	Richard A. Gonzalez	AbbVie	US
36	John Donahoe	Nike	US
37	David A. Ricks	Eli Lilly	US
38	Brian L. Roberts	Comcast Corporation	US
39	Marc N. Casper	Thermo Fisher Scientific	US
40	Tan Hock Eng	Broadcom	US
41	Hans Vestberg	Verizon Communications	US
42	Nicolas Hieronimus	LOreal	France
43	Safra Catz	Oracle	US
44	Marc Benioff	Salesforce	US
45	Robert Ford	Abbott Laboratories	US
46	Lars Fruergaard Jorgensen	Novo Nordisk	Denmark
47	Walter Craig Jelinek	Costco	US
48	Mukesh Ambani	Reliance	India
49	Julie Sweet	Accenture	Ireland
50	Patrick P. Gelsinger	Intel Corporation	US
51	Charles W. Scharf	Wells Fargo	US
52	Robert M. Davis	Merck	US
53	Rainer M. Blair	Danaher Corporation	US
54	Cristiano Amon	Qualcomm	US
55	Rajesh Gopinathan	Tata Consultancy Services	India
56	Vasant (Vas) Narasimhan	Novartis	Switzerland
57	Dan Schulman	PayPal	US
58	Christopher John Kempczinski	McDonald	US
59	John T. Stankey	AT&T	US
60	Ben van Beurden	Shell	Netherlands
61	Carol B. Tome	United Parcel Service	US
62	Pascal Soriot	AstraZeneca	UK
63	Bob van Dijk	Prosus	Netherlands
64	James P. Gorman	Morgan Stanley	US
65	Reed Hastings/Ted Sarandos	Netflix	US
66	Walter W Bettinger II	Charles Schwab	US
67	Mike Henry	BHP	Australia
68	Rich Templeton	Texas Instruments	US
69	David I. McKay	Royal Bank of Canada	Canada
70	Steve Angel	Linde plc	Ireland
71	James L Robo	NextEra Energy	US
72	Christian Klein	SAP	Germany
73	Lance M. Fritz	Union Pacific Railroad	US
74	Marvin Ellison	Lowes	US
75	Jacek Olczak	Philip Morris	US
76	Axel Dumas	Hermes	France
77	Sasan K. Goodarzi	Intuit	US
78	Patrick Pouyanne	TotalEnergies	France
79	Bharat Masrani	Toronto-Dominion Bank	Canada
80	Geoffrey S. Martha	Medtronic	Ireland
81	Darius Adamczyk	Honeywell	US
82	Lisa Su	Advanced Micro Devices	US
83	Noel Paul Quinn	HSBC Holdings	UK
84	Kenichiro Yoshida	Sony Group	Japan
85	Alan Jope	Unilever PLC	UK
86	Giovanni Caforio	Bristol Myers Squibb	US
87	Karen S. Lynch	CVS Health	US
88	Michael Sievert	T-Mobile US	US
89	Pietro Beccari	Dior	France
90	Gregory J. Hayes	Raytheon	US
91	Roland Busch	Siemens	Germany
92	Paul Hudson	Sanofi	France
93	Robert A. Bradway	Amgen	US
94	Sashidhar Jagdishan	HDFC Bank	India
95	Jane Fraser	Citigroup	US
96	Gary E. Dickerson	Applied Materials	US
97	Stephen Squeri	American Express	US
98	Herbert Diess	Volkswagen	Germany
99	Jakob Stausholm	Rio Tinto	UK
100	Dave Calhoun	Boeing	US

 

[MrStretch]

1 hour ago, longwood50 said:

 let someone study hard, get the grades required to get into a top business school, obtrain their degree and through performance in a company rise to the top of the firm, that generates billions in profits and employes hundreds of thousands of people, their skill is somehow worth only a pittance compared to Kim Kardashian. 

The issue that most people have in criticizing those well-paid CEOs and execs is that they are making hundreds, if not thousands of times more money than lower level employees in the same company.  So, in essence, the CEO is getting rich off of the backs of the workers.  That's the complaint.

It has absolutely no logical connection to a prize fighter, an actor, or a performer.  It's comparing apples to durian.

[longwood50]

14 hours ago, Marc26 said:

Where exactly is this public outrage? Of course some will always have a gripe and it is a fact that CEO pay in the US is outrageously higher than in other countries

Ok here is a litany of articles

CEOs were paid 399 times as much as a typical worker in 2021

https://www.epi.org › publication › ceo-pay-in-2021

 

 

 

CEOs made a median $20 million last year—254 times more ...

 

 

Bernie Sanders blasts Kroger CEO's pay as 'disgusting'

As said, I find it amazing that these same people never express any disgust over Floyd Mayweather earning $1.1 BILLION for beating someones brains in, or Kim Kardashian with zero skills of any kind now amassing a net worth of $1.8 BILLION.  I would sooner pay for the skills of an outstanding business person whose company generates billions in revenue and employs tens of thousands of people than say that the world would miss the contributions of Kim Kardashian,  or Ylian Mbappe.  The companies are what makes the economy grow, gives people jobs, and improves lives for the masses.  Perhaps you think that you would entrust that to the lowest paid executive but candidly I don't go for the cheapest heart surgeon, nor would I want the CEO of a company that my livlihood depended on to be bargain basement either. 

As a shareholder in many companies I care very little about what the CEO earns so long as the company is performing well.  No, I would not take any solice in having a poor performing company but saying, but Oh Well at least I got a cheap CEO, 

In terms of relative importance in this world, those who run businesses are a far more important component than someone who sings, dances, can throw a baseball, or dunk a basketball.  However just like you, who show disdain for what the CEO earns, seem to have no problem if someone can earn billions for just entertainment value. 




 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[longwood50]

14 hours ago, MrStretch said:

The issue that most people have in criticizing those well-paid CEOs and execs is that they are making hundreds, if not thousands of times more money than lower level employees in the same company.  So, in essence, the CEO is getting rich off of the backs of the workers.  That's the complaint.

It has absolutely no logical connection to a prize fighter, an actor, or a performer.  It's comparing apples to durian.

Oh and Mayweather is not making thousands of times more than the trainer, or George Clooney is not making thousands of times more than the person filming him. Bull Pucky. 

As to your statement about the CEO getting wealthy off the backs of the workers.  I suggest you have it backwards.  The CEO is the captain of the ship.  If successful employees have jobs and wages.  If unsuccessful both he and the workers have none.  Instead of being thankful for the success of the company and the jobs it provides, the typical worker thinks that somehow they were the person instrumental in making the company successful.  The production employee can typically be replaced with a machine.  Not so with the person whose business sense has to make decisions on the operation of the company. 

[Marc26]

3 hours ago, longwood50 said:

Oh and Mayweather is not making thousands of times more than the trainer, or George Clooney is not making thousands of times more than the person filming him. Bull Pucky. 

As to your statement about the CEO getting wealthy off the backs of the workers.  I suggest you have it backwards.  The CEO is the captain of the ship.  If successful employees have jobs and wages.  If unsuccessful both he and the workers have none.  Instead of being thankful for the success of the company and the jobs it provides, the typical worker thinks that somehow they were the person instrumental in making the company successful.  The production employee can typically be replaced with a machine.  Not so with the person whose business sense has to make decisions on the operation of the company. 

But again I provided you a list where almost all of those on that list are celebrated not vilified 

 

Believe me I am in a job that is vilified for being overpaid by the general public 

I get many people who have no idea what I actually  do take shots at me as a "banker"

 

But I get paid an exact % of the revenue I produce 

 

So I am not really one to go after anyone's compensation 

 

I just don't see the vilification of it that you seem to do

[Khunmark]

19 hours ago, longwood50 said:

You miss the point.  I don't have disdain for Mayweather, atheletes or entertainers.  They are being paid based on what the marketplace says they are worth.  The same is true of Fortune 500 executives.  There is no gun to the head of companies to pay millions to a CEO.  

What I find hypocritical is that the general public has no outrage that Floyd Mayweather possesses the sole talent to beat someone elses brains in and somehow that is worth over $1 billion. 

However by contrast let someone study hard, get the grades required to get into a top business school, obtrain their degree and through performance in a company rise to the top of the firm, that generates billions in profits and employes hundreds of thousands of people, their skill is somehow worth only a pittance compared to Kim Kardashian.  

There are 130,000 actors in the screen actors guild.  There are 1,057 players in Major League Baseball.  There are 1,696 players in the National Football League.  

However there are only 500 Fortune 500 companies.  These people are the best of the best, but somehow the public believes that a trained monkey could do the job but if someone can jump through the air and dunk a basketball well that has extreme worth.  

I think you’re overplaying the hatred of wealthy CEOs line. And under appreciating the dedication and talent that is required to be a top entertainer. And it really doesn’t matter what you think in the eyes of Mayweather, et al anyway.

[longwood50]

1 hour ago, Marc26 said:

But again I provided you a list where almost all of those on that list are celebrated not vilified 

Believe me I am in a job that is vilified for being overpaid by the general public 

I get many people who have no idea what I actually  do take shots at me as a "banker"

But I get paid an exact % of the revenue I produce 

So I am not really one to go after anyone's compensation 

I just don't see the vilification of it that you seem to do

I don't villify anyone for what they make.  I believe the marketplace dictates what a person is worth.  However, in terms of negative comments I repeatedly see comments blasting the CEO's compensation but never a word about a hollywood actor, professional baseball player, professional soccer player.  It is like if you can sing, dance, act, or do something with a ball, then any amount of money is ok.  But if you operate with your brain and business acumen that is to be chastized. 

For those who say the CEO's are riding the back of the employees, consider, Bed, Bath & Beyond is floundering and may soon declare bankrupty.  If the success of the company is dependent on the employees are we to consider Bed Bath & Beyond's failure to be because of lousy employess or because of poor management.   General Motors, Delta Airlines, American Airlines, Sears, Texaco, Chrysler, all declared bankruptcy.  If success is due to the employees and the CEO's are just along for the ride, did the employees fail those companies or was management to blame.  I chose the latter. 

So if management gets the blame for failure alternatively it should get the credit when the company does well.  Apple which was one of the companies mentioned Tim Cook has a base salary of $3 million.  By contrast the AVERAGE salary in the NBA is $9.6 million with the highest being Damian Lillard at $63.2 million. 

Tim Cook CEO Apple :   Base salary: $3 million (No change) · Annual Cash Incentive: $6 million (No change) · Equity Award Value: $40 million. Down from $75 million in ...

 

So while I believe Cook is handsomely paid, relative to his importance to the largest company by market cap in the world and as a percentage of revenue he is woefully underpaid compared to someone who can merely put a ball through a hoop. 

I have no problem with whatever someone earns.  My original post merely declared I find it so indicative of class envy that business owners and CEO's get blasted for their compensation despite their importance and entertainers make far more and get a total pass by the public who seems to think that Kim Kardashian is easily worth the $1.8 billion net worth which mean she probably had to earn upwards of $3.5 billion to retain that much after taxes. 

 

[longwood50]

23 minutes ago, Khunmark said:

I think you’re overplaying the hatred of wealthy CEOs line. And under appreciating the dedication and talent that is required to be a top entertainer. And it really doesn’t matter what you think in the eyes of Mayweather, et al anyway.

Well I can only comment that I have never even once seen public commentary blasting the money paid to a boxer, singer, actor, etc.  I see numerous public posts decrying what business owners and CEO's make.  While I can appreciate the talent required to be a top entertainer, that in no way diminishes the talent it takes to be a successful business owner or one of only 500 CEO's in the Fortune 500.  The 500 CEO's are far rarer air than actors, football players, professional baseball players, or NBA players.  

 

[Khunmark]

4 minutes ago, longwood50 said:

Well I can only comment that I have never even once seen public commentary blasting the money paid to a boxer, singer, actor, etc.  I see numerous public posts decrying what business owners and CEO's make.  While I can appreciate the talent required to be a top entertainer, that in no way diminishes the talent it takes to be a successful business owner or one of only 500 CEO's in the Fortune 500.  The 500 CEO's are far rarer air than actors, football players, professional baseball players, or NBA players.  

At the risk of this discussion going in circles it was you who diminished the achievements of sports people. Nobody, in here at least, diminished the achievements of CEO’s. And you are using a false equivalence in your final sentence.

A fairer comparison would be either, all CEO’s and all professional sports people or fortune 500s and 500 top professional sports people. The later being the preferable because not all professional sports people or members of the actors guild command the sort of earnings we are talking about.

And if we are to agree on the latter metric then, no, the Fortune 500 CEO’s are not a rarer bird.

[longwood50]

1 hour ago, Khunmark said:

And if we are to agree on the latter metric then, no, the Fortune 500 CEO’s are not a rarer bird.

I beg to differ.  There are 975 players in Major League Baseball Alone.  Another 450 in the NBA, 1,696 in the NFL.  There are hundreds of actors and singers.  There are 832 players just in the World Cup Soccer Teams. 

So if you look at athletes you have Auto Racing, Football, Baseball, Soccer, Hockey, Tennis, Golf, Car Racing, Boxing, Rugby, and Cricket. 

So you literally have thousands of athletes and entertainers but only 500 Fortune 500 companies, ergo only the top 500 business people in the USA.  Much more rare.  

[Marc26]

8 hours ago, longwood50 said:

I don't villify anyone for what they make.  I believe the marketplace dictates what a person is worth.  However, in terms of negative comments I repeatedly see comments blasting the CEO's compensation but never a word about a hollywood actor, professional baseball player, professional soccer player.  It is like if you can sing, dance, act, or do something with a ball, then any amount of money is ok.  But if you operate with your brain and business acumen that is to be chastized. 

For those who say the CEO's are riding the back of the employees, consider, Bed, Bath & Beyond is floundering and may soon declare bankrupty.  If the success of the company is dependent on the employees are we to consider Bed Bath & Beyond's failure to be because of lousy employess or because of poor management.   General Motors, Delta Airlines, American Airlines, Sears, Texaco, Chrysler, all declared bankruptcy.  If success is due to the employees and the CEO's are just along for the ride, did the employees fail those companies or was management to blame.  I chose the latter. 

So if management gets the blame for failure alternatively it should get the credit when the company does well.  Apple which was one of the companies mentioned Tim Cook has a base salary of $3 million.  By contrast the AVERAGE salary in the NBA is $9.6 million with the highest being Damian Lillard at $63.2 million. 

Tim Cook CEO Apple :   Base salary: $3 million (No change) · Annual Cash Incentive: $6 million (No change) · Equity Award Value: $40 million. Down from $75 million in ...

So while I believe Cook is handsomely paid, relative to his importance to the largest company by market cap in the world and as a percentage of revenue he is woefully underpaid compared to someone who can merely put a ball through a hoop. 

I have no problem with whatever someone earns.  My original post merely declared I find it so indicative of class envy that business owners and CEO's get blasted for their compensation despite their importance and entertainers make far more and get a total pass by the public who seems to think that Kim Kardashian is easily worth the $1.8 billion net worth which mean she probably had to earn upwards of $3.5 billion to retain that much after taxes. 

 

I think in the case of entertainers and athletes you can easily quantify their value vs the revenue generated

Plus both those industries are providing a source of happiness for people

 

As for Tim Cook

He's not even close to vilified

And yes, a bad CEO could hurt a comply but many competent CEO's could have taken the reins of Apple's already path to success and done what he's done.

 

So if you take Mayweather vs Tim Cook

Mayor generated that revenue 100% by himself basically or with another big name boxer 

So that's pretty easy for people to quantify

Tim Cook, again not ever really villifed, took and already Uber successfully company and didn't mess it up 

 

Plus add in that he and other CEO's so need the support of employee adds a bit of ambiguity to what they are actually worth

[Marc26]

8 hours ago, longwood50 said:

Well I can only comment that I have never even once seen public commentary blasting the money paid to a boxer, singer, actor, etc.  I see numerous public posts decrying what business owners and CEO's make.  While I can appreciate the talent required to be a top entertainer, that in no way diminishes the talent it takes to be a successful business owner or one of only 500 CEO's in the Fortune 500.  The 500 CEO's are far rarer air than actors, football players, professional baseball players, or NBA players.  

Not really 

If you think about it, the entertainers you mentioned are the top of the top in sports and entertainment 

They are your "CEO's" of their field and there are far fewer of them than 500 CEO's

 

Not all entertainers and athletes are the "CEO's" of their teams or movie

 

And most CEO's that are criticized are the ones whose companies have a Negaunee impact on the company 

Again you don't really see Tech CEO's vilified for their compensation 

Or even multinational company CEO

 

You see airlines, bank, oil and pharmaceutical because a lot of times the public is negatively impacted by those industries 

[Marc26]

6 hours ago, longwood50 said:

I beg to differ.  There are 975 players in Major League Baseball Alone.  Another 450 in the NBA, 1,696 in the NFL.  There are hundreds of actors and singers.  There are 832 players just in the World Cup Soccer Teams. 

So if you look at athletes you have Auto Racing, Football, Baseball, Soccer, Hockey, Tennis, Golf, Car Racing, Boxing, Rugby, and Cricket. 

So you literally have thousands of athletes and entertainers but only 500 Fortune 500 companies, ergo only the top 500 business people in the USA.  Much more rare.  

 But as I pointed out only a small portion of them reach CEO level in sports and entertainment so your comparison is flawed

 

There are 1000's of executives in banking, oil, tech, etc as well

[longwood50]

8 hours ago, Marc26 said:

But as I pointed out only a small portion of them reach CEO level in sports and entertainment so your comparison is flawed

Yes there are, so but I am pointing deliberately to the top executives of the Fortune 500.  These are the ones who receive negative comments about their compensation.  They are the CEO's of America's largest corporations.  No different than the 975 players in Major League Baseball.  They have reached the pinnacle of their chosen occupation.  

There are tens of thousands of minor league and semi pro baseball players.  But my comparison was between the Mike Trouts who got a $426 million dollar contract for playing center field.  No negative comments.  However let a CEO of a Fortune 500 company get a similar compensation package and the CEO gets villified.  I don't have a problem with either.  It is the marketplace dictating what a person is worth. 

 

[longwood50]

8 hours ago, Marc26 said:

Not all entertainers and athletes are the "CEO's" of their teams or movie

You really have trouble comprehending don't you.  I didn't say they were CEO's  I said that you have some athelete not even a superstar earning more than a CEO but it is the CEO of a company who gets villified and not the third baseman hitting .231 that does. 

 

[longwood50]

9 hours ago, Marc26 said:

I think in the case of entertainers and athletes you can easily quantify their value vs the revenue generated

I disagree.  Tell me just how much revenue Mike Trout generated and your source for that.  His $426 million dollar contract what based solely on what the "Angels" perceived his worth to be and what another team might offer him for his services.  The same is true for CEO's.  The company pays them based solely on their perceived value and what other companies might offer them.  

One huge differece is that most CEO's compensation is incentive based.  They get those large payouts only if the company meets financial targets.  Not true with atheletes who get the majority of their money even if they are on the bench for non-performance.