While I'm not a fan of state-owned clubs, I personally don't feel they are the problem. Football has been awash with money for a long, long time now.
Perhaps not to the same extent as it is now, but perhaps people forgot the 'Merseyside Millionaires'. Blackburne and United bought the leagues decades ago.
Dean at Arsenal et al. helped produce a system where the match-going fans became cash cows, with unaffordable tickets and TV rights being the trump card.
Yet what I dislike the most is, how the authorities haven't only just facilitated it, but they have produced a system that in the most cases maintain the status quo.
FFP and PL sustainability rules mean it's nigh on impossible for teams to really compete at the top echelons if they weren't in that top bracket at the outset.
You'll have teams who grow and do it right (see Brighton), but there's a glass ceiling; teams like Southampton, who were once well regarded, can't keep it up.
The only teams who will be able to compete are those funded and supported by the mega-rich, which is where state ownership comes right into play.
They have the money to lose in the short term, deep enough pockets for the long-term, the tools to circumnavigate the restrictions (sponsorship deals)...
... and the right modus operandi. City's owners were never going to get tired or bored because it was part of their country's strategy. PIF will be the exact same.
They may have bought the league, so what... I totally understand why they've done it. If we're looking for people to blame, it's those who've facilitated it.
Would I be happy with such an owner? Nah. Nevertheless, without such an owner, the chances of us ever being successful again are slim to none...
... unless the rules are changed. That's not going to happen soon though, as money greases the pockets of those who could bring it about - money talks.