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.
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.
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?
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.