The club game at the highest level is undoubtedly better quality but there's much more to the sport than that.
Yes. And what is the "highest level"? It sure isn't Hull vs Middlesbrough, and it also probably isn't a league won last year by a kick & chase Leicester and whose other top teams have made little impact in the ECL. The "highest level" is really just a handful of big derbies in a handful of countries, combined with the last few rounds of the ECL recently. The highest level in internationals is about the same.
It's important to have games that mean something, and international football will always have the upper hand in that respect.
Better quality comes in many forms. The entertainment of say, Man City 6-6 Monaco, or Barcelona 6-5 PSG might be very exciting, and there was undoubtedly great attacking quality but equally there were absolutely rank amateur exhibitions of defending, goalkeeping, refereeing and managerial tactics in those games. They were not exhibitions of high quality football as a whole, just aspects of it.
The polarised people (particularly journalists) who lap up the EPL but appear to deride all other forms of the sport aren't actually fans of football, they are just latching on to a soap opera which is currently in fashion. They aren't qualified to comment on international football because they know nothing about it beyond England's most recent tournament display. They don't watch any international football except for England matches.
These journalists are nothing more than a little clique of old men sitting in a dingy pub eating stale pork pies and complaining about them, while there is a vibrant international food festival with all kinds of exciting cuisines going on outside.
Besides, if they are talking about the quality of what they have to watch, how about showing a little more quality in doing their own job. The press coverage of England-Lithuania was abysmal. It can be summarised as "if we only win 1-0 or 2-0 we are crap, if we win 3-0 it is acceptable, and if we win 4-0 or 5-0 it is good but still meaningless." That's it. Zero mention of any Lithuanian player, tactics, previous results etc, except perhaps for a brief joke about pronouncing the long names of Lithuanians (Oxlade-Chamberlain irony lost?). No actual analysis of the opponent beyond "they are place NNN in the rankings but they got a draw at Hampden" or "they play in yellow and green, like Norwich."
Similarly, I recall the pre-match TV analysis of the Portugal-Iceland match at the Euros. This can be summarised as "Portugal have Ronaldo" (cue montage of Ronaldo clips) and "Iceland is cold" (cue montage of geysers and rocky landscapes). That was it.
And yet these media presenters, pundits and journos somehow imagine they are cerebral connoisseurs who have a right to be entertained by only the finest performances, and lambast everything that is less than top drawer, when their own work is about as effective as a Bolivian zebra crossing.