It seems reasonable to claim that inequalities can be deserved or undeserved only if the principle of equality of opportunity has been be previously satisfied. The main purpose of this article is to argue against desert as a principle of distributive justice –that is, desert as comparative desert– by showing that, in some cases, even if undeserved inequalities are eliminated, the principle of equality of opportunity is not satisfied and, for this reason, comparative desert judgments are illegitimate.