I think the difference is that everybody believes that they too could be a sports star, in the same way as everybody believes that they too will one day be rich - whereas intellect is a rather fixed quantity - so point taken, I was overly broad.

Physical prowess is probably just as limited as intelligence, although our culture definitely associates strength with the gym and smarts with being born that way (although both traits will be equally useless if not developed by training).

I think there's a "social proximity" effect to it.

If you see someone you consider immensely superior to yourself on TV, for example, you're likely to consider yourself either disconnected (and not threatened) by them, or entertain a fantasy of "I could be that someday" (see: most Americans).

Alternatively, if you see someone you consider even slightly superior to yourself who is situated similarly in social hierarchy to you, or who you encounter as a peer or near-peer in your everyday life (e.g. a classmate, friend, or sibling), the threat response is much stronger.

I don't know why this is (maybe "this person maybe could take my food/resources/whatever, notices me, and is materially able to take from me" versus "this person definitely could take my food/resources/whatever but does not know me and is not materially able to take from me" brain-stem thinking?)

I meant 'sports stars' in the context of high school... people who certainly could and traditionally did take food resources away from more scholarly children.

Everyone loves a winner, on some level. But are sports stars generally popular with the public or among their peers, or teammates?

Michael Jordan, was/is endured to the public for his talent and work ethic, but I don’t believe he was adored quite the same by teammates or opponents.

I have no idea. the kids who were good at sports seemed to be pretty popular in high school, though, which is what I thought we were talking about.