It's like a kid playing basketball. He beats the odds and make his high school team. He beats the odds and is a starter. He beats more odds and is the star. He beats even more odds and wins an athletic scholarship to college. He not only makes the team but becomes a starter and eventually the star of the team. He further beats the odds and is drafted by an NBA team. He not only makes the team but becomes a starter.
Imagine telling that guy he's a failure because he's no LeBron James. Apparently if you're not a unicorn founder you've achieved nothing.
Good analogy, but without taking into account the financing side of things it's only a partial picture.
Imagine if that player was borrowing and spending Other People's Money since High School, based on the EXPECTATION that one day he'll be the next LeBron James and pay it all back with sufficient return or forced into bankruptcy.
He had natural talent, but needed money for better shoes, trainers, better nutrition, etc in order to achieve the top level as quickly as possible. So he found some people to loan him the money.
In that scenario, it's not so much a question of whether playing in the NBA is a desirable outcome -- it's certainly better than if he hadn't made it that far -- but one would have to also consider the financial outcome for his investors and him personally.
There are lots of bankrupt NBA players (for different reasons, but still).
This is the article's point: if you're not LeBron, don't choose a trajectory that requires that level of outsized outcome in order to be successful.
I believe this scenario actually happens for soccer players, where investors can by equity in a young player's future sale to a bigger club. Although I think there have been some recent attempts to crack down on this practice.
Imagine telling that guy he's a failure because he's no LeBron James. Apparently if you're not a unicorn founder you've achieved nothing.