I don't think so really, if you look at two scenarios of a single player. one scenario being a $2,000,000 transfer and the other being a $5,000,000 transfer with exactly the same performances, the only difference in realities is the cost of the player. Is the latter really worse? Or is it some sort of illogical conclusion that our monkey brains make because the return should be higher on a larger transfer fee, right? I don't think there is much rationality to the transfer market and it's going rates, and for these mega-clubs that aren't ever going into administration, the cost of players shouldn't be used as a barometre to measure their actual worth to the team.