Sports personalities enjoy astronomical incomes, while other professionals do not earn a fraction of such huge sums. Some people think this is justified, whereas others see an injustice in the value system. I think that fairness is irrelevant here.
To some people, the earnings of successful athletes seem fair. One reason might be that they work in an industry with a tremendous amount of support from the masses, serving millions of fans and supporters, whereas other professions concern a particular and smaller demographic. While millions might buy tickets to all sorts of sporting events, not as many will pay for the services a professional surgeon provides. More importantly, while all professionals will have to endure all kinds of pains on their path to success, sports professionals with far shorter career spans must live a protected life away from the fans to save their personal lives.
Others argue that the incomes of sports figures indicate a skewed value system. The services provided by teachers, doctors, or lawmakers can influence people's lives. For instance, a teacher helps build the future by educating young minds, one of whom might be the next president or discoverer of a vaccine that saves humanity. This might not be the case when it comes to famous athletes merely entertaining people through games; at best, they only provide a means to kill time to help the masses escape the grim reality for a few hours.
These discussions suggest that the income professionals make is linked to the size of the demographic they serve. Since sports target millions of people, it is natural that they should become vastly wealthy; this is a type of economic determinism from which there is no escape, and can bring about an inevitable imbalance in the income of all sorts of professionals, regardless of the value of their services. Therefore, the issue of fairness is irrelevant in this context.
