CEOs have enormous leverage to affect change in their company, with proportionate increase in company returns. An average worker or even an excellent one has fewer opportunities, and even then influence is usually limited to a single team or product.
An example of leverage would be, investing $x million in product line x instead of y. While anyone theoretically can make this decision, the larger $x is the more you want someone owning this who has made these type of decisions before. Which requires someone who has progressively taken more risks in their career and made the right calls.
Really awful rhetoric (from anti-capitalists) I hear is that nobody works 1,000x times as long or as hard as the average worker. Value is not manifested in how long or how hard you work.
I think it's part of a wider worldview that doesn't believe that talent is very impactful, and in favor of cooperation rather than competition.
Michael Phelps is not just a product of luck, either. You could train your entire life and not be as good a swimmer as him. You'd have to redefine luck to include genetics.