What caught my attention in the article is where the high pay seems to be going. The first example of the president making 250k+high class living actually seem

What caught my attention in the article is where the high pay seems to be going. The first example of the president making 250k+high class living actually seemed _low_ if we compare to top executive compensation across the board, and actually made me raise an eyebrow at their whole argument. However, the low pay for athletes seemed both supported and reminiscent of the attitudes around college sports in the US. Later in the article additional points supported this, e.g. Nike sponsorship money. Converse incentives between execs and employees (athletes) should be something very familiar to those of us in tech, and I'd imagine an athlete has as little or less bargaining power than we do (citing many recent HN discussions on the topic) unless they are a rock star among rock stars, so I can appreciate that scenario. I'm not sure if I had a point in this, but to try and wrap up the ramble: I think there's some interesting "lemma" in that the money is accumulating "in the middle" so to speak that someone smarter than me might make, and also that there seems to be a universal pattern for employee taking-advantage-of in situations of misaligned incentives.