I won't comment on whether Iger "deserves" what he gets, or whether he's doing an good job running WDW.
However, most of what CEOs get paid is based on a contract that they sign when they join the company that stipulates how much they get. Iger's most recent contract, from what I can see, was signed in 2008. A lot of the time, these "30 % raises" occur because part of their contract is they are granted a certain # of stock options each year. It is not based on a certain set price, but a certain # of shares. I didn't look into it, but say Iger gets 100,000 shares per year per his contract. If the stock price goes from $25 average one year to $32.5 average the next year, than his pay will go up 30 %.
However, the irony of people complaining about his pay going up is a stock option at $25 a share is MORE lucrative to Iger than a stock option of $32.5 a share. So even though he gets PAID more (on paper) with the higher value stock option - he actually MAKES more (in his pocket) when he excercises the LOWER value stock option. And he only MAKES money on any of these things if the stock price stays up. (If the stock price drops below the option price, they become worthless.)
So, these articles about CEO pays going up are really more about enraging the general populace (and employees specifically) than about real compensation. Another example of this - a small amount of research will show that his compensation in 2008 was $30.6 Million. (See
here if you wish.) These most recent articles claim in 2010, it was $28 Million, "up 30 % from a year ago" (or actually I've seen varying #s from 24 to 35 % up". So, in 2009 he was down to $21 Million. (I'll give you THAT link
here.)Yet, last year, you didn't see anyone touting "Bob Iger take 35 % Pay cut." Nope, because that's not news that interests people, only news that makes CEOs look like greedy *******s.
Now, the truth is, NIETHER should be big news. Compensation is based on a CONTRACT that is publicly available. Bonuses and stock options are spelled out in the contract. If the company is profitable, then the that's why he gets paid.
I'm not defending how much CEOs or executives make...I'm just trying to point out that to ride them for pay increases that they are contractually obligated to when hired is rather hopeless.