Those seem a bit odd. They certainly don’t represent good value for the licence fee payer.
There seems to be some more entertaining people not even in the top list.
Your statement is more than slightly subjective.
The people paying the wages at the Beeb know the market value of each person that they pay.
Over the years I worked for a shed load of people that worked in corporate roles in TV land. One day, they may be at the BBC, then they would join Channel 4/ITV/Channel 5/SKY.
One of my siblings joined Channel 5 in a corporate role before they started broadcasting. In a good year, with bonuses the said sibling would have been third on the OP's initial list (in terms of income). The said, my sibling decided to retire at the age of 52. My sibling took two years out of work and was head hunted by Sky. Once tempted to carry on working for a tad longer, they, the sibling, joined a different broadcasting company that was willing to pay more.
Having worked for people in the industry over the years, I don't bat an eye lid at the wages paid by broadcasters, frankly, the amount for a "star" to present a programme is a tiny fraction of the overall production costs.
If people believe that the BBC, being licence payer funded, pay above industry wages, then those people are misguided. If that were the case, the A stars would be on the BBC and the likes of Sky/ITV/Ch5 would be lobbying the government of the day to rectify things.
