Well of course this shows that high taxation depresses economic activity IF THE TAX RATE IS OVER 100%. Bolt is likely to actually LOSE money by competing in the UK because they tax his worldwide endorsements.
I don't think anyone would dispute that if you made tax rates of say 150% that economic activity would decline. Heck, I don't think many people would disagree that a tax rate of 95% would cause economic activity to decline because in this case the marginal benefit of making extra money is only 1/20 of what it would be with no taxes.
But if tax rates are say 50%, then people are keeping HALF of what they would if there were no taxes. I don't think many rich people would say "sure, I'll work hard at my job if I get paid $10M, but if I only get paid $5M...well...I think I'd rather just watch TV". Add this to the fact that a tax rate of zero is completely infeasible, and the difference is even smaller.
So would there be cases in which a highest tax rate of 50% would decrease economic activity over a tax rate of 30%? Probably. But only in very few cases, and not nearly enough to counteract the added revenue from the tax. The few elite rich do not drive the economy, and they can be expected to give back to society some of the incredible wealth that society has given to them.
(For the record, I am against the UK tax on endorsements because it comes to a very high tax rate, and because stars have other cheaper options that they take instead. This is why we need to control companies going offshore to trying to evade taxation.)