Well lets agree to disagree. Personally, I do not see what those clubs where meant to do. From about the 1990's onwards football started to become monopolized by the 'big clubs' who where starting to centralize the wealth. The only way clubs outside of that group could compete was to get an owner like Qatar, Abu Dhabi or Abramovich.
Furthermore, it is also a little simplistic to say that these clubs are the only ones. If you go back to the origins of football in Europe, a lot of the clubs where initially funded by local business men who would send kids inbetween machinery for them to get crushed, whilst even teams today like Utd, Arsenal and the Dippers are owned by American venture capitalists. So for me when I look at things, I largely see globalisation at work. If you want to have an arguement about the ills of globalisation first, then apply it to football, then fair enough.
Now that doesn't mean I am completely sanguine about all if it. I can see some arguments against the owners of City and PSG as they clearly exploit migrant workers in their country, but I am not so sure about Abramovich. Personally, I do not see him as someone so different to Burscoloni and we don't see many people complaining about 80-00's Milan.