No...it's one of his NUMEROUS revenue streams.
I don't get the point you're making here when I'm obviously comparing two guys making money over products that...
bear their name.
You can look at it this way, though.
Dre was mostly a "worker" to your standards in the music biz for years before he partnered with Jimmy with Aftermath, and later down the line, Beats by Dre.
So he used his money and connections from music and parlayed in a biz ownership that finally made him a billionaire (or close to that).
MJ was a "worker" albeit a very high-paid one and used that money and connection to own a biz (Hornets) that made him a billionaire.
See the parallel?
If you wanted to talk about "being an owner of a billion dollar asset" then both of them belong there.
OP was about MJ becoming a billionaire thru the ownership of Charlotte Hornets, not Air Jordans.
Then you came in this thread with two talking points, one is "being an owner", and the other being "royalties vs equity share return on products bearing their names".
1. "Promoting ownership in general", if it was about promoting ownership in the pursuit of accumulating major wealth, MJ is there because he got there by owning a billion dollar asset in Hornets.
2. "Royalty vs Equity" If your talking point is about MJ not becoming a billionaire from Air Jordans, then it is not relevant to the original topic because it wasn't about Air Jordans in the first place.
With the timing of things you could've been very well compelled to compare the two, but you're comparing apples and oranges here.
If you wanted MJ to became a billionaire thru sneaker money on top of the Hornets valuation, then that's your personal wish and not relevant to the topic at hand.