This is an inherent paradox in sports.
A, want sports to "be fair".
B, we want to find out which is the better team.
But if one is better, then it's not fair.
And if the game is perfectly fair, the result is just randomness and not interesting.
I would argue this paradox, or rather the tension between those mutually exclusive desires is a large part of the attraction of sports. It's why pretty much all the most popular sports stories are underdog stories. The more uneven the game looks, the greater the tension between those two desires, until the underdog literally can not win and the tension breaks.
In other words, too much parity and too little parity both make the game lose tension.
In general, parity isn't that great for interest in sports. In an optimal situation the worst teams can just barely compete on the same level with the best teams. This is how the most popular leagues tend to function. It's why a relegation system and a tiered league system is so good in the long term; it naturally creates a situation with established greats and a obvious underdogs who once in a blue moon prove that the game is ultimately fair by winning the whole thing.
The NHL regular season is a somewhat unique example of the opposite, because it's a really long tournament with extreme parity that doesn't even have a meaningful price at the end. The draft ensures that in the long term even the top players are randomly distributed. It's so fair it's become quite boring.
At least the playoffs have a clear winner in the end.
Rambling in spoilers.