I think there needs to proper regulation to create some sense of balance. It's not right that clubs that are running massive losses are able to be the best teams in the world because some billionaire decides to eat the losses. It doesn't reward proper management or running of a club. I don't have an issue with clubs that make more money spending more money but it's clubs that are deep in the red financially being the most successful that makes no sense to me.
The comparisons to American sports, which a few people have done, are interesting but I just don't think it's really comparable in a lot of ways. First off, you'll never have a "town" team win anything in the US, because the smallest cities that have clubs in the US are still very large cities/metro areas. One could see that Green Bay won the SuperBowl and that the city only has about 100k, but the fact is Milwaukee and Madison don't have NFL teams so it's the de facto team for all of Wisconsin (pop: 5.7 million). Since there is no relegation/promotion, the only hope of a city that doesn't have a team in a certain sport is that another team moves there (abandoning another city in the process) or there is an expansion team (no more than a few a decade and at this point more leagues are talking about contracting teams). In terms of revenue, there's either a salary cap (NBA, NFL, NHL), revenue sharing (all) and/or a luxury tax (NBA, MLB maybe NHL?) which tries to keep teams in check. Finally, we have a draft system so all the best players typically go to the shittiest teams. The most extreme example of this is the Florida Marlins, a team with basically no fans that makes money by having such a low payroll that it breaks even before the season starts off of revenue sharing. They naturally accumulate high draft picks and talented players and the won the World Series in 1997 and 2003 and promptly sold their whole team for huge profit the next year. With no relegation to worry about, they just suck and suck until they reach a critical mass of talent and compete for a couple years (the Tampa Rays also did this but to their credit sustained the success). This is my long-winded way of saying that the American way isn't a whole lot better when all things are considered. We have 30 team leagues of teams that can compete for anything, with some teams consistently more favored than others, but the group stage for the CL is 32 teams and with similar populations, it's not as if there's a much bigger difference in teams competing. We just don't allow the provincial teams to ever get on the field.
PS One other major reason we have a greater diversity of champions is the best 1/3 to 1/2 of the league plays a tournament to decide the champion, making the league totally meaningless once they're in. So that's always going to be more of a wildcard, i.e. the Giants were not the best team in baseball last year, just the team in best form in October.