Fine. However, let's try defining the difference between give and take, and then applying it to the original question. A plastic surgeon is in practice to make money. They will perform the surgery, for a fee. The person having surgery will feel better when the surgery is a success and worse if the surgery is botched. The "active" contribution by the doctor is the same (the surgery). In either case, however, the motivation for the doctor was not to "contribute" to ther persons emotional state, it was to perform a job for a fee.
Given that a contribution should take an active role, what do elite athletes contribute to society?
Had the original question been "What affects do elite athletes have on society?", then a lot of the answers make more sense.
Okay, I get what you're saying here: basically "contribute" means "give," and you're assuming that "giving" is inherently active and intentional.
I think you're argument is way too caught up in semantics. Let's say I got plastic surgery, and then made the statement "Dr. Surgeon has given me hope again--now I'm not so butt ugly that no one will date me." Is my statement incorrect, even if Dr. Surgeon didn't INTEND to give me this hope? I don't think so.
But if you want to play the semantic game, let's look at one of the other entries under "contribute" in Webster's: "to play a significant part in bringing about an end or result." I think that definition basically makes the questions "What do elite athletes contribute to society" and "what affects do elite athletes have on society" the same.