In a capitalist system the world belongs to those who own and have spare capital to invest vs. those who rent.
Being very good at creating things is a potential pathway from renter to owner, but so is being very good at maintaining things, or managing people, etc. Anything which you can be paid a lot of money for will do.
You could be an author or an artist or something else, and have far more fulfillment in life than making 10x working at a job that you're good at but that doesn't bring you as much fulfillment.
For the average person, the choice to become a successful artist isn't a trade off between more money and more satisfaction. If they fail to become successful they will significantly lose out in terms of life's more basic needs, because they won't have enough money.
Edit: Don't get me wrong, I would love to agree with OP. But I don't think human society is there yet.
I see a successful artist as someone who is creative enough to acquire basic needs, comforts, and actualization with little or no money - be it through bartering or learning to create for themselves.
Success can also come in the form of making statements about society through their medium(s) of choice, and ideally changing the outlook an audience.
In this regard, religion and arts were the first forms of software engineering - by the modification of the observers perspective.
Of course there is also aesthetic art, which is beautiful for us to admire because it is proof of the capacity of another humans attention to detail. These works usually don't seek to comment on the state of culture.
How many former humanities students do you know?
If success just means being happy with yourself then sure, go for it. However this is a retreat from what OP stated: "The World Belongs to Those Who Create VS Those Who Don't".
If we are restricting ourselves specifically to artists then, for an average person, becoming a materially successful artist requires capital investment and an appetite for risk (or a lack of understanding of the risks). The capital investment will most likely come from parents in the form of education, food, security, etc.
Becoming a successful artist without any of that support sounds like a horrible all-or-nothing proposition with no fall back position. (You have no capital if you fail because you didn't hedge your bets with a steadier/less fulfilling career).
That might mean working a lower-skilled job you can just clock in and out of so you can focus your efforts and time on other things you care about or even just applying your existing specialism in an industry/company that offers you more creative freedom at the expense of some compensation.
Those who create might be that, but they are notorious for also being fussy, difficult to satisfy their creative urges, and often abuse themselves, etc.
We can also say that you can have tons of fulfillment without either making 10x at some job, or "creating" -- just by enjoying life, friendship, eating, relaxing, traveling, etc.
So, in that sense "the world belongs" to those who can enjoy it.
(Of course if we extend that to the logical extreme, the world belongs to the easily amused. Which might be a valid point).
Sometimes true, but is that because of who they are or how whether they're producing?
I'd argue for creative types, not creating can just make all this worse.