Most of us grow up believing rewards follow effort in a fairly linear way. Work harder, get better results, earn slightly more. Then we step into the real world and see something that doesn’t fit that logic: people who are only slightly better sometimes end up with dramatically more recognition, opportunity, and income.
That mismatch is what Barabási’s second law helps explain: performance is bounded, but success is unbounded. In other words, human ability has a ceiling, but the way the world rewards the top can scale far beyond that ceiling.
Performance Is Bounded
Human performance has limits. How fast can we run? How far can we throw a ball? How long can we stay focused?
Take Usain Bolt. Even as a world-record sprinter, under normal circumstances he would not run two or three times faster than an average person. The gap is real, but it is not infinite. That is the point: performance has a ceiling.
In many fields, performance clusters around an average, with fewer people at the extremes. Statistically, this is often described by a normal distribution (the classic bell curve), where most outcomes sit near the middle and the tails taper off toward the extremes.
So if you are a writer, lawyer, doctor, or programmer competing in a crowded domain, the performance differences among strong candidates are often relatively small. Excellence is crowded.
Success Is Unbounded
Now comes the surprising part. If performance is bounded, it feels intuitive to expect rewards to be bounded too, or at least roughly proportional. The best performer should earn more than the rest, but not wildly more.
Yet in many fields, rewards do not scale neatly with performance. Markets reward attention and visibility, and those can scale far beyond small differences in ability. That is how bounded performance can produce unbounded outcomes.
A simple way to see this is to compare what global superstars make versus what their peers typically make.
Take Roger Federer. His career prize money is enormous, but prize money is still the “bounded” part because it is tied to results within the sport’s payout structure. The “unbounded” part appears when success becomes scalable through reputation and global attention. That is why endorsement contracts can dwarf tournament winnings. Federer’s Uniqlo deal was widely reported at around $300 million over 10 years, a number that sits on a completely different scale than what most elite players can earn from competition alone.That is a gap of roughly 1,000 to one — not because Federer was 1,000 times the tennis player, but because his success became scalable in a way that his rivals’ never did.
Now compare that to what “normal” looks like for other top professionals. The ATP’s Baseline programme introduced guaranteed minimums, including $300,000 for Top 100 singles players, and $200,000 for players ranked 101 to 175 for 2025. Those are meaningful numbers, but they also show the gap clearly: the typical earnings floor for elite peers is measured in hundreds of thousands, while a global superstar’s endorsement economics can move into nine figures.
Tiger Woods shows the same pattern in golf. His official career tournament earnings are huge, but the larger story is that his total career earnings are driven primarily by sponsorships and business deals rather than prize money. For comparison, reported average earnings on the PGA Tour in 2024 were around $1.978 million. The gap between “very good” and “global superstar” becomes enormous, not because the performance gap is infinite, but because endorsements, media exposure, and brand demand amplify success far beyond the bounds of human performance.
What This Means for Us
The point is not that performance is irrelevant. It is that once you enter a crowded zone of excellence, small differences become harder to detect, and rewards can be amplified by visibility, reputation, and market dynamics.
In a world where success has no ceiling, the question is not just how good you are — it is how clearly that goodness can be seen. The rest of this piece is about both.