Unlike some on here I've not really as invested in this argument but I think the better-manager argument isn't always as interesting as the better-achievements one.
Pep's successes at Barcelona were incredible but it was achieved in a league where there's (usually, at least) one other team to beat. And while his stuff in Europe was brilliant, he did it by inheriting three of the greatest players of all time - all of whom he said that without he'd have been managing in the second division.
His reign at Bayern is pretty much forgettable, I think. I loved how he went there instead of England but what he did there was pretty much in line with how most managers get on there. It was the equivalent of taking on the Celtic job here.
At City he's amassed the most expensive club team in football history and carried on the work of those who'd won the league before him. There is a direct correlation in almost every league in history with the amount of money spent and the number of leagues won.
All very nice stuff, but he's taken over the richest, most financially backed teams in each of the leagues he's gone to after Barcelona. It's all a bit of a waste, really.
He might go onto win the Champions' League this year - it wouldn't be unexpected - but his grinding success at big teams isn't really awe-inspiring, is it?
As I say, not a hill I'm prepared to die on that others (madly enough on a Rangers forum) seem to want to.