The idea that technical expertise in leadership roles is paramount is outdated. OB research supports it and there's plenty of anecdotal evidence out there. Carlos Ghosn at Nissan. Meg Whitman at Ebay and HP. Paul Idzik at Etrade. Kevin Sharer at Amgen. Bob Nardelli at Home Depot.
Pro sports is insular. Probably because the guys running the show like it that way. That doesn't make it right any more than it makes it wrong.
http://www.ceoqmagazine.com/mostrespectedceos/topceolessons.htm
Well, those examples aren't exactly equivalent to a sports franchises either.
All of the people you mentioned were extraordinary in "business", so they are able to run a "business" with which they are not familiar with the product or the template. However, they understand the dynamics of leadership, and of well run organizations...and have been part of that.
Were you to ask someone like that to be, say, a team President for a Franchise, then I see it, easily.
But to be the the architect of that team (or GM), then I do believe that experience in the field matters.
You would never see any of your aforementioned people running the R&D of those firms. They would be out of their league, and would fail miserably. A GM needs to know the product, much like a head of R&D does.
So your equivalencies are made under a false pretense, IMO