[empyrrhicist]

I don't follow sports, but at least those people are doing actual, physically comparable things with clear connections to revenue (more like music artists than CEOs).

Maybe that analogy is more apt than you intended though, in that the valuations are made for shallow human/society reasons that are quite decoupled from reality.

[jvmfjvfjvf]

There are many players who don't live up to their $100MM+ contracts. I fail to understand why physicality should be relevant to high compensation.

[evandale]

> There are many players who don't live up to their $100MM+ contracts.

Do you have examples? The ticket sales alone that big name players drive to home games make far more than 100MM over the course of their contacts.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/294166/toronto-blue-jays...

That doesn't even include all the merchandise and the food/drink sales and all the other benefits that come from signing big name stars. The CEO of a company doesn't have the same "star" power a pro athlete, musician, or actor has.

[rubicon33]

Physicality is far more measurable in its results than the product of a thousands strong multi-national company.

In other words one can pretty clearly attribute the performance of an athlete to said athletes talents and ability. In the case of the CEO making the same money, it's much harder to measure their performance, and even harder to attribute the success of the company to their direct performance. This point becomes even more true as companies grow in scale, such as Google has done.

[ztrww]

> it's much harder to measure their performance

That doesn’t mean that their performance can’t significantly affect their companies stock price to a much higher degree than similarly paid athletes could.

> Physicality is far more measurable

Who cares. Do you believe that only people whose output could be precisely measured should be highly compensated?

Of course there is a lot of inefficiency considering Pichai seems to be a very poor CEO who’s quite replaceable.