You are not qualified to tell others to not to judge what yet others deserve. Everybody is entitled to (and must) have a opinion and judgment on such issues. Having an opinion is an important function of education and it's an indicator too.

It's altogether different point what market gives to that person. Market generally rewards anyone irrespective of their actual merits, because market works on apparent merits and anyone good at selling themselves succeed.

Ponzi was a very good example of how markets work. [1]

Yahoo as well might have allowed itself to get "ponzied". That's their foolishness and they are paying its price.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme

Edit: typo and added link

His net worth isn't based on being able to throw balls through hoops; it's based on his ability to attract and retain a huge audience for advertisers.

Doesn't matter. I dont think advertisers should pay that much money to him.

Case in point is that worth of Mayers might depend on far too many factors which we cant comprehend and we must not judge her.

Advertisers are notoriously poor at proving ROI, so you could be right in your assessment of his worth to them. Anyway, if putting a ball through a hoop was a bankable skill, this guy would be a billionaire: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oG_DQXEK764

Yep. To be one of the best at throwing balls through hoops is no small feat, and the market has shown that lots of people will buy tickets and merchandise as a result. Therefore he's worth the $.

It's also a very risky and short lived career.

Someone's opinion on what someone deserves in relation to someone else has nothing to do with market value quite often. It's not a hard distinction.

Yes, but what happens to his salary if he stops performing individually? Does he get a huge bonus if he blows his ACL? Does he get a huge bonus if the team loses in the first round?

The downside protection afforded to CEOs is ridiculous - heads I win, tails you lose.

I'd love to know who is qualified to judge what others deserve...

Corporations constantly decide what people deserve. They also have mechanisms for deciding if a high value deal is risky, unnecessary, or poor value for money. Because those rules are flouted when hiring CEO's a huge amount of risk is created. That threat (of a bad CEO) is mitigated by trying to hire and retain "the best", and consequentially the most expensive. It all makes sense because they have you over a barrel.

The problem is that companies are over reliant on a single leadership figure. This makes little sense in large companies with lots of complex divisions and interests. Does it really make sense to rely on a single person to guide the company?