Well yeah, the tennis example is pretty limited as an analogy because it's the players themselves, their parents, and maybe coaches who do the investing. Also,

Well yeah, the tennis example is pretty limited as an analogy because it's the players themselves, their parents, and maybe coaches who do the investing. Also, flattening the payouts is better if you want more people playing tennis professionally, but that might not actually be a desirable outcome. I think it's mainly useful as an example to show how minor skill differences can lead to massively different outcomes. It's up to us to decide whether and how much income redistribution will lead to the kind of society we want to live in.