Can any player or group of players be ranked by money alone? I don't believe so. We are not always valuing the player by his paycheck. Some credit has to be given to the player agents themselves and their skill in negotiating for their clients. Not everyone is going to wring out every penny from a sports organisation.
Spending money in sports does not make you better. A team can purchase all the top talented players in the world, but in a team sport like soccer, if they can't gel together as a team, then all the talent means nothing. Look at many baseball teams like the LA Angels, they have the most talent but are a horrible team.
More money does not make you a better team. It is your actions and your spirit that makes you who you are. Real Madrid does not seem to care as much about great playing so much as what their status is . That's fine. Over the course of the season, the "best" team will show their colors, and there will be no debate!
When it comes to sporting, money value is a poor way to rank a team. Are the Yankees, who traditionally spend lavishly on players, the "best" American baseball team? Are the Patriots, a powerhouse American football team that traditionally recruits low-wage, non spotlight players, a "worse" team because they spend less money? Obviously not, as the Patriots on the field record shows. Manchester United has a rich team history, plenty of money, and is ranked first in the league. They are the better team