I think the point some posters are making is that money has pretty much always won in football as if you go through history most clubs that have dominated their leagues or had success at domestic level have been the financial powerhouses of their time and the vast majority of those have been funded by some sort of businessman.
The issue is that some people cannot make a connection between a local industrialist/millionaires from the late 19 Century - 20 century and the foreign Billionaires of the 21 Century.
There are of course exceptions. Bilbao for instance have a very clear remit on how they develop players/who can play for them. Equally a team like Forest also had a spell where the went from mediocrity to back to back European champions. However, their spells of dominance/ascents came at a time football hadn't been fully commercialised, which not only reinforced the 'class system' but then created barriers to entry.
Therefore, it has to be asked what teams outside of the elite were meant to do? Accept their fate? Or take on benefactor, who uses their own wealth, to be competitive?
For the record, I agree that clubs should be allowed to have a rich owner to help propel them. However, with things like financial fair play it is clear that this method in the most extreme circumstances is generally frowned upon and seen as unhealthy.
I'd argue that for most of the time in football, Manchester United, Arsenal and Liverpool have tried to do things more by the book with a history of success and morals more-so than other teams of late. It wasn't a case of a rich owner turning them from next to nothing to something in a short space of time. There is definitely a balance to find and I hope it can be done, but I understand people's concerns.
There has to be some form of limit though, otherwise what's stopping multi-billionaires owning the majority of the Premier League clubs? Once we get to 7-8 clubs with the Chelsea / Man City level of investment, and the same happening in other leagues, what happens then? You just end up with the teams that were already more successful being the most successful again.
It isn't a long-term solution IMO for rich owners to buy clubs and help them compete for higher honours and positions than what they already are. If Manchester United or Liverpool had an owner come in who could spend what the City & Chelsea owners can, I think it would be less of a contest than it is now. They are bigger clubs so as soon as the money available was evened out, you'd probably see the better players choosing them even more than they do now etc. It's a very difficult conversation to have but I could see it going that way.
Of course, the big teams all have rich owners already and do spend, but it definitely feels like Liverpool and United are hindered in some transfer windows with what they can do, more-so than the clubs with the bigger financial backing.