I was always bombarded by this question, especially when the conditional Sokolovsky speaks outright nonsense about this.
Doctors, firefighters, etc. receive salaries either from the state or from a private organization, in both cases the conditions for receiving wages depend little on the workers themselves.
Football is a business, and wages are formed in a completely different way. The football club receives income from the sale of tickets for matches, the sale of club merchandise, from broadcasts on TV, sponsorship contracts, etc. The money goes to the club's budget, after which it pays the player's salary out of them in accordance with his skills, status, role in the team.
Conclusion: people pay for the show, those who provide the show receive money.
Football players do not earn more on average, they earn much more unequally, while the success of one player depends on the failure of another. If the outcome of the operation directly depended on whether this surgeon was better than some other (i.e., they would, for example, fencing with scalpels and the operation was successful only with the winner), the monetary motivation and inequality of their income would also be significant ... Of course, this inequality is further exacerbated by the fact that the best footballers are shown on TV with ads and are paid for these ads. But do not forget that there are fewer such football players than chief doctors.
Behind football, in my opinion, there are show-offs of rich people who realize them through their football teams. And as you know, show-offs are more expensive than money, hence the high salaries of football players.
Because the work of football players is a huge sports show, and a football player must do everything to sell himself at a higher price. It is extremely difficult to make a show out of the work of doctors, but this does not negate their merits. This is our capitalist world :)