I think there a huge misunderstanding of how CEO's are compensated. They almost never paid directly in cash when they get these huge bonuses but in shares of the company. This is the case here also and even saying he got 200 million worth of stock is actually quite questionable.
A article about how he was compensated
https://www.tweaktown.com/news/78327/no-activision-ceo-bobby-kotick-didnt-get-200-million-bonus-payout/index.html
I not saying the system is not broken but CEO compensation is a side effect of what it wrong and not the actual issue. How CEO been paid have not changed in 50 years but what have is the importance of the stock market in how business run. Which on the plus have made people who have invested in the stock market a lot of money but for every day workers who not invested or cant afford to invest it have not worked out.
A chart to illustrate what am saying. CEO compensation have roughly track with the S&P since 1970. The problem is how much employees have been paid have not tracked and that is why CEO now is so much higher then every day employees but it all about a system that all about maximize stock and not about how CEO are paid.
Changing CEO compensation packages would not help a single employee. Changing how they achieve there compensation to not be base on Stock might but that not happening because no one owning companies and there stock want it to change. Stock holders complain and sue not to help employee but because it Dilutes there ownership of existing shares they own. The more Shares outstanding the less power each share have.
Fighting for employees rights, Minimum wage and government regulation to better prevent monopolies is far more useful then complaining about CEO pays. CEO pay is a symptom of the system and it not going to help anyone making that the focus point. It make good head lines and people can get all work up about it but in the end it not actually helping anyone or changing anything.
