If he is the highest paid player, his income loss will be bigger.
Not as simple as that GS- no one knows ( he hasn't said anything publicly to my knowledge) what Hunt thinks is a fair deal for the lowest paid players. In Paul Kent's article "No room for the battlers" in the Daily Telegraph (Sat 23/5), he reports how the lowest paid players were effectively abandoned by the RLPA, the higher paid players and their player managers during the recent pay cut negotiations with the NRL in the pursuit of self-interest. Kent claimed that James Graham was the lone voice for the lower paid players during these negotiations.
While the agreed 20% cut was across the board and superficially fair, it hid a misinterpretation. It was a cut to their full year contract- not just to what remained to be paid. Players had already been paid 60% of their 2020 entitlements and it left someone on a $110,000 a year contract on around $23K, before tax, or $1000 per week, for the remaining 5 months.
Kent cited the example of Canberra's Luke Bateman who couldn't afford the public service driven high Canberra rent and, with his partner, has had to quit the NRL to return to hometown Brisbane for a job with family- no jobs in Canberra or anywhere due to Covid 19. Bateman wasn't Robinson Crusoe.
PAYE taxpayers are subject to progressive income tax levels which recognise the disproportionate impact of higher tax brackets on lower paid workers. If this principle had been applied in this situation, Bateman should have had a pay cut of say 5-10% which would have given him a fighting chance of keeping his NRL dream alive.