It's not going to ownership though is it. Levy's wages don't go up or down based on how much he's paying the players. Kane being paid what you perceive to he less than he should be simply means more funds are available to be spent by the club elsewhere.It's unfair if he is making below market wages compared to his contribution and value. It's not about being close to starvation.
The money he isn't making is just going straight to ownership. It's not going to the homeless.
As for market value, do you not feel it would be fair to say that PEA is being paid more than his market value? Or would you just determine market value as whoever is being paid the most?
Let's also not forget that Kane's wages are an amount that he agreed to and signed up for a set period, it's not an arbitrary sum decided by the mean stingey club which he had no say over.
Why should we simply open the gates and usher our best player on his merry way because Woolwich massively over pay their players? Or because trophies are now largely dominated by oil rich super clubs?