There are a number of misconceptions in this thread:
1. Taxation for athletes is much more complicated than simply looking at the tax rate in the jurisdiction where they played. Many Americans playing in Canada have structured their affairs in such a way that they're (effectively) taxed at US income tax rates. (Auston Matthews and John Tavares appear to be doing this - and good for them for getting proper professional advice). "Jock taxes" exist (meaning that athletes need to pay income tax in many jurisdictions in which they play - not just where their team is located). Additionally, there are many differences between what expenses are deductible in Canada and the US. The point is - this is a complex topic and simply comparing the top rate in different jurisdictions can be misleading.
2. The RCA, as it currently exists, can be an enormously powerful tool to defer income taxes. (In fact, in the NBA, Canadian teams - currently only the Raptors - can't use it, because it gives athletes playing in Canada "an unfair advantage"). This gives Canadian teams a significant advantage over American teams. But it's also true that, generally, tax rates are lower in the USA. It isn't obvious which country has the more favourable tax situation from a professional athlete's perspective - it depends many specific facts.
3. With respect to Bautista's case, the issue comes down to interpretation. Based on what I've read, he appears to be using the RCA in a typical way. The challenge is, the Canadian Income Tax Act only allows "reasonable" contributions to be treated as a deduction from taxable income, and "reasonable" isn't defined in the Act. It appears that Bautista has taken the position that his significant contributions are reasonable (and therefore tax deductible), whereas the CRA says they're not reasonable (and therefore not all of the contributions should be treated as a deduction from taxable income). Without knowing more about the facts, it's difficult to comment on which side has a stronger argument. But it appears to be a matter of interpretation of a grey area.