Whether anyone needs £2m a year is of course doubtful. However if they can earn it why shouldn't they be paid it?

For example, consider a pop star who can fill a football stadium. Say 50,000 seats at £50 a ticket means ticket sales of £2.5m, for just one event. OK that's not all profit, there are costs to be taken off. However those 50,000 people have all been willing to pay to see that person perform. Why should that person not receive a significant proportion of the profit generated from the event, and in what sense are they not "worth it" if they are sole reason those tickets were sold?

For TV presenters the link with the money is less direct, but they are paid these sums because they attract a large audience, which for commercial broadcasters translates directly into income. These presenters are able to demand a large share of this income because, despite appearances, there are not many who could do their job and they cannot easily be replaced. The BBC doesn't rely on audience size for its income, but if we want the BBC to make high-quality programmes it has to be able to attract and retain the best people, which means paying them what they could expect to get elsewhere.