Yeti, it is very possible for someone growing up poor and attending a public school to be successful, it is just objectively less likely than someone who grew up with rich parents and attending a fancy private school. You can argue that the largest determinant of success is the decisions of the individual, but that only tells part of the story. The rich kid just has a greater margin for error.
Likewise, Collingwood have missed the last three finals series, made it through this year, and are in the market for the biggest free agent in the class. They were already getting classy players as free agents and were a requested trade partner while they were missing the finals.
Freo were in a strong position, having made finals regularly, and couldn't get a Lynch-type to save their lives. You can retrospectively attribute that to bad management if you like, but we had a top 4 team and a sack of cash to spend. That seems like reasonable management to me. If we had one more decent key forward in 2013 we might have won a premiership. Hawthorn just needed one decent full back and ruckman to round out their list, and they walked through the front door. If the game was played at Subi we might have won.
I know you think that institutional advantages are 'better management, pure and simple', but isn't it at least possible to acknowledge that some clubs have a greater margin for error than others? Unless you think we have pure equality, then isn't this an uncontroversial statement?
I think it was Marx who predicted the establishment of a classless football league constituted by a free association of equal clubs. I just never predicted this footballing socio-economic emancipation would be so effortlessly implemented by man who calls in favours for his polo-playing mate’s au pairs.
It seems unlikely to me.