This opinion is completely irrelevant.
I understand exactly what you're saying. If you really look at worldly problems, skiing is basically the dumbest thing you can possibly do. As a matter of fact, it is actually the richest sport on the planet (by average HHI) including Yachting and Golf. So to be a skier is to be part of the super-elite who have nothing better to do with their money than ride flying couches up a mountain, and slide downwards on snow.
So for your argument to hold relevance on this website, we would need to all quit skiing, shut down newschoolers, close the entire ski industry and get all of our parents to donate half of their yearly take-home pay to starving kids in Africa. If we did this, then we can actually start to help the world.
However, the fact that the ski industry exists, and you (and likely your family) like to ski means that there is a real business behind the sport. Extend that to the fact that the Olympics are happening (and is what has caused this debate) and we now have the fact that there is an international need for sport competition.
So again, if we're now laying Olympics on top of it - for your argument to maintain relevance - we would need to abolish the Olympics, and all of sports. Solely dedicate all of our time to saving Africa. Go to work - take care of your family - spend all of yours and your family's free time saving Africa.
If we're not going to do any of that, and some people need leisure activities, then in order for those leisure activities to be successful, we need people that are obsessed and committed to them 150%. If we want to have X-games, have Olympics, and have sport... there are people that are going to dedicate their lives to it. This is perfectly OK, and in fact dominating a Niche - or living within one - is often a fantastic and successful undertaking.
Someone like Tanner is given money - which is driven by capitalism and market forces - to ski. He is given this money because people watch Tanner ski, and decide to purchase the products that he is riding on. Some people might not like his attitude - but that is irrelevant again - capitalism will save the day. If they don't like Tanner, they won't buy his products, and people will cease to give him money to ski.
Of course, Tanner can act however he pleases and then ski like a champion. If enough people love his skiing, and don't care about his attitude - they might still buy that product based on their belief that if it works for an an athlete at his level, it must be good stuff. Again, companies can continue to pay Tanner because he is moving product in a leisure industry which people who have the economic means continue to support.
In closing, the fact that there is an industry of skiing, and it is recognized at an international level means that we need athletes that are committed to the sport with every ounce of their soul. If their attitude is something we don't like, then don't buy their product. You can not however in this debate bring up the idea that Tanner needs more world focus. He doesn't, he needs to stay focused on his part of our wonderful economy of the world and be the best skier he possibly can be.
TL;DR: If you claim on world focus, then you and everyone else has to stop skiing immediately. You can not continue to ski, yet bring up the idea that Tanner needs more world focus. He doesn't, he needs to stay focused on his part of our wonderful economy and be the best skier he possibly can be.