[bombolo]

> Better players make more money

Well you define "better players" as "those making more money"… so in the end you are proving your statement via tautology. Which is meaningless.

In any case, even admitting that meritocracy in football works (it probably doesn't)… so what? Most workers aren't professional football players.

[yucky]

I feel like you're trolling, or just setting up a strawman since the argument has been lost. But in good faith, I'll try one more time.

"Better players" are defined by production on the field. That better play on the field then results in higher contracts for the better players. I'm not defining better players by the size of their contracts. Players who never perform well won't get the biggest contracts. Which is meritocratic, by definition.

   > Most workers aren't professional football players.

No, but it's just one of many examples that proves there are people who significantly outperform their peers. The idea of rewarding them more as a result of better performance is what a meritocracy is.

[bombolo]

Italian players are paid a lot and italy didn't even qualify… are you still insisting on the correctness of your easily disproved theory?

[yucky]

Italy can't control what others pay, but using your example does Italy pay all of their players the same, or do they generally pay more money to their better players?

[bombolo]

But it can control wages, and seems they are above market rate? Which of course means that wages aren't adjusted by merit.

[yucky]

This is 100% incorrect. They do not pay all of their players the same. The better players make more money.

[bombolo]

> The better players make more money.

Shouldn't the better players qualify for tournaments then? Are you being obtuse on purpose?