I know in the NFL, a lot of those contracts have clauses big enough to drive a dump truck through. Many of those million dollar football contracts are back loaded to only pay out if the athlete competes the full term [0]. Winning and losing games is definitely tied to whether they stay or are cut.
Unlike a CEO, a poor performing athlete has no golden parachute to fall back to.
[0] https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-salary-cap-terms-tricks-to-know...
Athlete contracts on the other hand are fixed. If the athlete does well the team organization gains the benefit. If the athlete does poorly the athlete may be fired or transferred. And there is no gold parachute when they are cut.
So I don't recognize the similarities between CEO and pro athlete compensation at all.
Athlete pay (at least for athletes who are paid by an owner and not mostly from prize money) isn't really tied to winning or losing, but is largely defined by collectively bargained negotiations, based on how much the league brings in. You also have guys like Bryce Harper who, even when he goes 0-for-3, will earn their keep in other ways, like getting people to watch games on TV which increases rights fees & ad rates, selling tickets to games where people spend money on parking and beer or jersey sales: https://www.mlb.com/news/bryce-harper-sets-pro-sports-jersey...
In short, athletes get paid a lot because they know how much money their bosses are making from their labor and have collectively bargained to get their fair share.
It's the same thing as top athletes getting contracts paying them millions of dollars whether or not they continue to win games.