I don't doubt that I was in the minority, but there were many many online games where I was sufficiently challenged. On the hardest difficulty, even when I don't bump to make it even as the AI lacks the ability to bump(?), I win every game with ease unless I handicap myself in some way.
This obviously feels pretty empty when I'm challenged or I lose, because I know I can simply remove the handicap at any point to ensure that I win. Now when you have a range of difficulty levels available, shouldn't the hardest difficulty cater for the very best players? Lesser skilled players can select a lower difficulty if it's too hard for them.
I play NBA 2k games a lot, and I am only just now good enough to win regularly on the hardest difficulty, but not with ease. Before this, I had no problems playing on the 2nd or 3rd hardest levels and getting a good challenge.
There just seems to be no logic to knowingly making the hardest difficulty too easy for some players. FIFA 13's legendary difficulty is ridiculously hard, almost perfect, so I play on the level before that. But there are better players out there than me so I accept that a hard level is required.
And to address your point about the AI 'cheating'. I don't really know what you mean by cheating, but in AFL for one they definitely make some dumb decisions and there are little exploits you can use (I don't, I want a challenge) to increase the likelihood of these exploits. So the AI should get some sort of bonus to compensate for their occasional stupidity that the user doesn't have.
Overall my point is just that sport games in particular should be made so that the hardest difficulty is a challenge for the best players. That is why you have a range of difficulty levels available. Any other decision I genuinely do not understand.