Just a note in regard to the notion of the moral worth of work being the only thing relevant: this is actually one of the central ideas behind the capitalist paradigm (albeit in a different form). It takes the form that, assuming all value/morality is ultimately subjective (all value judgements are equally relevant), and that a person's values are most clearly reflected in their actions, then whatever action a person takes at a given moment is the 'best' action, the action they consider most moral, most valuable. If this action doesn't limit the ability of another individual to act how they wish, then this represents a net gain in value. So if people's voluntary interactions lead to lots of money/resources going to CEOS and pro footballers, for instance, then this is the best possible outcome assuming no coercion is involved.

This is where the capitalist notion of people pursuing their own pleasure without interfering with that of others stems from. This is a qualitative, not quantitative, notion of utility, and arguments have been made that it does not allow for interpersonal utility comparisons. Which is why hardcore followers of the theory (market anarchists) oppose regulation, as it necessarily requires coercion (making someone do something other than the action they'd most like to do), and without the possibility of interpersonal utility comparisons it's not possible to justify any such coercion.