I am not saying they're inherently evil, but buying a club as a toy to spend a sovereign wealth on makes you a dick pretty much by definition. In any event, I don't see what this has to do with 'non-traditional' or not, Chelsea were founded in 1905, Manchester City in 1894 (with that name). They're both traditional clubs, both had their moments in the sun in history. They're as traditional as Manchester United, Liverpool or Arsenal. They just didn't achieve the same level of popularity and success over those 100+ years as those clubs.
Why? Because all of those clubs' trajectories were determined by the decision-making of their chairmen and managers. They own that trajectory, the history of the club. The same way Derby County, Leeds United or Aston Villa own theirs. I am mentioning those clubs of course because those three teams won league titles more recently than Chelsea and Man City had before their sugar daddies arrived. So how is it good for the game? If some hyper-rich guys decide "hey I'm going to make this club a super team, not by being real smart about building them up over a course of a decade or two, no, we're just going to buy all the best players and hire the best available staff pretty much immediately whatever the cost might be, not like I don't have it". How do the fans of the 100+ other teams that aren't Man United and aren't picked as a toy for oligarchs or sheikhs feel about that in terms of competition?
Now we can argue, well that's just life, right, I mean it's not like without that happening Derby would be challenging for the title. But what it did of course is drive up the pressure to spend for everyone else from the Arsenals and Liverpools of the world down to the Derbys and Swindon Towns of the world. It's triggering a domino effect when you introduce that much money into the market. It acts as a catalyst for monetization and commercialization. Are Amazon heroes for destroying brick and mortar retail? Were Walmart heroes for destroying small chains and independent stores? I mean again we can just say "it's just economics", but then it's football, right. People aren't fans because of the economics of it, it's the stories and the beauty of it that drives people. That sounds like a cliche, but it's true, isn't it? And in that story of football, who in their right mind wouldn't at least think the mega-investor pouring in cash to get what he wants at all cost is the villain? Are we supposed to cheer for Biff in Back to the Future?
