The phrase 'I may not like that players have to be paid' was a rhetorical device intended to express sympathy (for the purposes of argument) with those who criticise players for being 'mercenaries'. In truth, I accept that players have to be paid, of course they do, but the accusation that such and such a player is a mercenary implies that players should in fact be playing for something other than their pay cheque. What's the opposite of a mercenary? Someone who plays purely out of loyalty to his club? That's the GAA, not the LoI.
I'm not sure what you don't understand about the 'bills' analogy: I would like to live in a world where I got expensive things cheaper. Cheap gas, good; dear gas, bad....Cheap players playing for loyalty, good; Dear players having to be paid, bad.
But I don't live in that world, so, yeah, it is pointless not liking it. For the same reason, it's pointless and meaningless to call people mercenaries.