So what? He's just a tennis player.
The market... well the market should be subordinated to the well being of the people. Shouldn't someone who has studied years and years earn more than someone who only plays a sport? I think so.
I have no need for millions and millions.
Depends extremely heavily on what
they studied for years and years, and how
they are applying that knowledge to make everyone's lives better. Study in itself doesn't make you worthy of millions of dollars. Case in point: the impact Steve Jobs had on the world vs the impact I've had on the world. I went to college for 4 years and spent 6 on a Ph.D. Steve Jobs spent, what, one semester in college? Moreover, even if we place a high premium on intensity and duration of study, don't you think Federer has studied his craft? Do you think he woke up one morning able to outplay everyone in the entire world? Why do you discount HIS years of study?
Finally, the premise of complaining about tennis players' earnings implies that sport serves no important societal purpose; yet, athletic contests have been a part of our culture throughout recorded history. The persistence of these contests seems to indicate a crucial role; perhaps they channel instincts that would otherwise be wasted in costly, bloody wars, or perhaps they provide inspiration and vocation for those who lack the intellect needed for academic success. I'm sure someone's studied this before; it might be worth looking into before we dismiss athletes and their successes as undeserving and wrong. Eliminating the lucrativeness of being a top athlete by force (forbidding companies from offering them endorsement deals, perhaps, or mandating that all of their "excess" earnings, ie, anything we as laypeople deem to be more than they deserve, be paid to their respective governments) would almost certainly kill the profession, and killing the profession may have unintended consequences.