Nowadays, famous athletes earn huge amount of money while even great scientists’ income can hardly reach to one-tenth of them. People have been sharply polarised by this issue; hence, few people can be found in the middle position. But what do each group state?
Advocates of talented sportsmen claim they are unique in their field. They can absorb the attention of hundreds of millions to TV screens as a consequence of their brilliant performance. Therefore, either the manager of matches or team owners can advertise in prime time or on their jerseys and make fortunes. In economic terms, supply and demand dictate commodities prices in the market. If a strong demand and a severe shortage exist for these heroes, why should they undervalue themselves? After all, this is how capitalism works.
On the opposite front, a vast crowd feels this reality is an injustice. They argue that those who are high achievers in other fields are unique, too. Furthermore, they compare the net income of some gifted scholars with mediocre football players and the outcome is awful in their viewpoint. Surely, all scientists don’t earn the same, but even Noble laureates earn less than sports celebrities. For instance, one of my genius colleagues complains non-stop, comparing his salary with a renowned superstar, Ronaldo. Although he has a good wage in comparison with our coworkers, he needs to save all his earnings to reach to Ronaldo’s weekly income level.
All in all, I think both parties have some elements of truth in their remarks. Nonetheless, the reality, however, harsh it is, will not vary unless the economic system evolves. Capitalism is not a matter of morality. To make it ethical, in my point of view, a tax code with no loopholes should be in place which has higher rates for those with multimillion monthly packages to compensate this bitter situation and dedicate this money to the well-being of humanity. 
Nowadays,  
famous
 athletes earn huge amount of money while even great scientists’ income can hardly reach to one-tenth of them.  
People
 have been  
sharply
  polarised
 by this issue;  
hence
, few  
people
 can  
be found
 in the middle position.  
But
 what do each group state?
Advocates of talented sportsmen claim they are unique in their field. They can absorb the attention of hundreds of millions to TV screens as a consequence of their brilliant performance.  
Therefore
, either the manager of matches or team owners can advertise in prime time or on their jerseys and  
make
 fortunes. In economic terms, supply and demand dictate commodities prices in the market. If a strong demand and a severe shortage exist for these heroes, why should they undervalue themselves?  
After all
, this is how capitalism works.
On the opposite front, a vast crowd feels this reality is an injustice. They argue that those who are high achievers in other fields are unique, too.  
Furthermore
, they compare the net income of  
some
 gifted scholars with mediocre football players and the outcome is awful in their viewpoint.  
Surely
, all scientists don’t earn the same,  
but
 even  
Noble laureates
 earn less than sports celebrities.  
For instance
, one of my genius colleagues complains non- 
stop
, comparing his salary with a renowned superstar, Ronaldo. Although he has a  
good
 wage  
in comparison
 with our coworkers, he needs to save all his earnings to reach to Ronaldo’s weekly income level.
All in all, I  
think
 both parties have  
some
 elements of truth in their remarks. Nonetheless, the reality,  
however
, harsh it is, will not vary unless the economic system evolves. Capitalism is not a matter of morality. To  
make
 it ethical, in my point of view, a tax code with no loopholes should be in place which has higher rates for those with multimillion monthly packages to compensate this bitter situation and dedicate this money to the well-being of humanity.