Its funny how many comments in this article question that an athlete could have such absurd wealth, but don't pause to think that there are many modern people that have multiples of his claimed 15 billion in wealth, which is somehow completely not absurd...
I think you're confusing discussions about whether something is (or was) true and discussions about whether something should be true be some moral standards, the classic Hume's is/ought distinction. People in the comments here don't seem to be making any value judgements, just arguing about historical truth.
