I think @wslh is saying the if you put the best players from multiple countries together (eg, if Qatar decided to spend unlimited money to build a club team that would be eligable for UEFA club competitions) that team would be the best.

>>Hint: look at Barça.

> What do you mean

This is a reference to the Barcelona teams built with basically unlimited budgets that have dominated the European Cup.

Of course, Qatar sort of does have a UEFA team called Manchester City via the state-run Qatar Airlines sponsorship. It has a basically unlimited budget and has dominated the English premier league for a while now (although it has struggled in European competition).

Don't forget Qatari owned Paris Saint-Germain (PSG) also. PSG is the club that Lionel Messi and his opposing number 10 from the World Cup Final, French star Kylian Mbappe, play for together in the French football league. Similar to Manchester City, they are often the best team in their country and frequently participate in the UEFA Champions League

Barça and PSG/City are very different beasts. Barcelona (like many clubs throughout Europe and South America) is member-owned. You can become a "sócio" (partner) and vote in elections for the club's director team.

PSG and City are glorified marketing vessels for human rights abusing autocracies. Very different.

Qatar owns the PSG. Also the UEFA implemented compensation caps and other measures to prevent the Qatari/Saudi/Emirati from buying out their clubs.

Another point: You can have the best team in the world, but it won't be the best team unless it plays against someone else (preferably many other teams). The game is interesting because the winner is uncertain. If the winner becomes certain at all times (or worse, all the rankings) then there is no reason to play the game anymore.