There's more to it than that though - when a player signs a contract, the club and the player both know that it is a way to protect that player's transfer value to the club for a set amount of time as much as it is a playing contract for that period. Few elite players are sold on a free, and so few players expect to run down these contracts. They renegotiate a new one, or leave, before the old one runs out.
I think the wasting of the Bale money and the failed Mourinho experiment has put Levy in a difficult position (a pickle of his own making). If he sells Kane, even for a huge sum, the fans don't trust him to spend the windfall wisely. But if he refuses to sell and forces him to see out his contract, 1) his value will likely plummet by 2024 given his current age, and 2) without improved performances the Kane story will linger and become a never-ending headache for the club.
I can see both sides of it. Kane has given Spurs possibly the best years of his career and he is indeed under contract, but is the club under Levy showing signs of moving beyond (or even returning to) their high-water mark under Poch? I don't see it. Back to square one. I don't think it's fair to just point to the player contract and suggest the player should just shut up and play regardless of what the club say and do.
To put it another way - if Kane is not allowed to leave, keeps banging in the goals for Spurs, but the team don't win any silverware because Levy either won't or can't buy in a better squad around Kane, how is that a good outcome? Kane leaves Spurs frustrated and well past his prime in 2024, for a lot less money, fans continue to wait for progress, and Levy continues to be Levy.
All this to say, I don't think this is purely a case of Kane having a tantrum.
