Usually, a competition for who can best utilize the resources.

For instance, if a government agency gets quotes for work done, the competition is based on the quality of the plan for accomplishing the work and on price.

If it's admission to an elite university, it's based on the demonstrated academic ability of the applicant.

If it's a sprint (i.e. sport for entertainment), it's who can run the fastest--if there's a prize it's "do whatever you want with these resources 'cause we think it's really cool that you can run so fast and we want to encourage that because we find it fun".

When it's you getting a home loan, it's probably competition based on who can offer you the best interest rate.

I readily admit that there are all sorts of ways that competitions can be skewed and biased (or based on the wrong thing, like who can guess the right numbers), but that brings me back to the original point: why does that mean the goal should be to get rid of competition entirely instead of constrain it to where it has value in motivating people to be productive and efficient?