How is it a weak and unsubstantiated hypothetical at best? There are plenty of examples of players packing it in or coming very close to and focusing on something else. As an Australian you have to look no further than Matosevic and Ebden.
A few isolated examples doesn't provide justification for a widespread change. Moreover, there are numerous of examples of players achieving extremely good results at junior level but doing far worse at senior level. You need more than just potential as a reason if you want to lobby for higher pay across the board
Originally Posted by Henry Chinaski
generous wages these guys pay themselves are a big problem too.
Patrick McEnroe takes home over $1m a year from the USTA and is still allowed to do his media work on the side.
USTA Chief Exec Arlen Kantarian earned $9m in 2008.
The top suit at the dysfunctional LTA earns upwards of £600,000 per year.
At least with the players going after a bigger piece of the pie these organisations will be forced to run a tighter ship.
I agree with the general idea of your post. There's always the possibility of executives and especially media personnel being overpaid. But there's really no comparison between the bargaining power of executives and that of the average player.
When you start bringing money into the discussion, it's no longer about the subjective idea of quality of tennis and all about who can drive profits. It then becomes a question of who you can afford to let go of. There is a massive difference between a chief executive and some random player. As harsh as it sounds, the financial effect on a tournament of a lower ranked player dropping out will be less than that of a bee sting on a 1-metre thick block of titanium. OTOH the chief executive is responsible for the strategic direction of the tournament. They're hired on the basis that they have the experience, knowledge and business acumen required to make the tournament attractive to sponsors, spectators and sustain the profit that goes with it.