> meritocracy isn't a thing

One of many examples I can give to disprove this as I'm sitting here watching Croatia & Morocco in the World Cup, is looking at some of the contracts some of these players get from their clubs. Wide disparity and definitely seems to be based on a meritocracy. Taken further, why are none of these fans in the stands, many of whom who also play for fun not equally compensated or even compensated at all? After all, they can kick a ball too.

So now that we've established that meritocracy is obviously a real thing, we have to ask what evidence you have that a meritocracy wouldn't exist in other fields, like programming for instance.

> So now that we've established that meritocracy is obviously a real thing

We have? Because… a football match was played? What did it prove exactly?

Uh...no. Better players make more money (due to meritocracy). Do you think the better players should make the same as the worst players?

> 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.

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.

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

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?

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

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

> The better players make more money.

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

> meritocracy isn't a thing, and saying no to more protections (from unions or from pro-worker laws) just doesn't make sense

You know that, and I know that, but the right wing has been pushing anti-union, anti-worker, pro-corporate propaganda for several decades now. That propaganda also dovetails with the preexisting Protestant work ethic and labor theory of value that have been pretty solidly in the American consciousness since...well, basically before its founding as a country.

All that combined means that for people who aren't raised in a progressive, pro-union environment, and who don't encounter such an environment until their belief systems are fairly well-established, the default background noise is pretty much "Unions? Why would you need that, you pansy? Real Men are islands unto themselves, work hard, and are paid exactly what they're worth for that work. That's how you know the poor deserve to be poor!"