Who the heck do you think you are, Milton Friedman?
Unfortunately I have far too much understanding of neoliberal economic concepts, and if you actually read my post it is readily accepted that he marginal utility is diminished hence where I wrote "'Im not calling any professional cricketer a money whore. You keep bringing that topic up. Out of curiosity do you think Dan Carter is a money whore? I do not. Players will play for less to play for NZ longer or coach in NZ longer, but you have to make the decision easier for them. if matching is impossible, at least lessen the opportunity cost." I quite understand that the quality of life is not linear with salary. But it does increase with more money. So the point remains entirely intact. I notice that you have ignored Flemming, Vettori and Bond's lengthened playing and coaching careers in New Zealand as opposed to say India or even Australia.
What is this mysterious threshold in regards to Watling that you refer to? Are you BJ Watling? Do you know all his personal threshold of satisfaction for all his decisions surrounding financial opportunity to be made? Do you know what his current and future opportunities are? Do you know what his aspirations are? Have you made the decision that he is content and shall remain content regardless of his future opportunities should they arise? My sole assumption is the rational assumption that he will want more pay than what he earns now, either presently or in the future, so as to secure his financial future and to do that he would want to increase his total earning potential to lead a better life in the long term. Because I understand the flaws of broad economic theory in explaining human nature of individuals, I do understand that he may not in fact be absolutely rational all the time.But don't tell me that as an international professional cricketer he is content in securing his long term financial life based on a 150k a year from his playing career which will be over at around 40 at best and quite likely earlier, even if he remains in form for several years from now. Furthermore, don't tell me that a possible star cricketer if good at another sporting code with greater or more readily available higher salaries making the chance of financial success less risky, would not consider playing that sport instead such as Rugby. Don't even tell me that a superstar cricketer or coach would not consider retiring NZ sports to take a commercial opportunity or consider moving if any only temporarily to a country with higher salaries. Even cricket commentators like Jeremy Coney have moved on. I don't miss Danny Morrison.
Furthermore, I never made the assumption that NZers hate Test Cricket and won't watch it. Quite the opposite in fact. I said "Aren't some fans drawn into ODI cricket likely to become interested in test cricket." Now it does make the assumption that ODI cricket will get more bums on seats and higher ratings on television in New Zealand than Test Cricket from the cricket neutral audience to be drawn into the game. You are free to challenge that point if you want.
You are rather condescending and ignorant to assume to know someone's knowledge and understanding of concepts. The former is an assumption at best and the latter, and given the errors in your analysis, I don't think your capable of the latter. Talking of BJ or any other cricketer starving is irrelevant and a failed use of hyperbole to clutch at straws to make a point. Its not even accurate enough to qualify as a strawman.
I am quite well versed in sociological, political science, and economic theory thanks all the same.