Whilst I, largely, agree with you, I think there is an underlying assumption propagated by the media that Middle Eastern businesses which choose to sponsor a club with a Middle Eastern owner are doing so for something other than commercial reasons. It doesn't make sense.
The fact is, that for a club today, a mega-wealthy owner is an absolute necessity if they want to break into the top 4 where the most income is. It is not Jack Walker, it's a Jim Ratcliffe, Sheikh Mansour, Abramovic or one of the many other billionaire owners that is required.
The difference is that there is a general assumption that the motivation for someone from the Middle East to own a club is different to that of, say, an American. As Sheikh Mansour has shown, this is not true. Other clubs are far outspending us driving up transfer fees and wages. The same goes for Middle East sponsors. There is an assumption that they are sponsoring a club because of the undue influence of the owner rather than for commercial reasons. Again, this has proved to be wholly untrue. When you compare the success of the Etihad sponsorship with, say, Team viewer, Chevrolet or Standard Chartered, there would be no argument that their sponsorship of City was anything other than a commercial one based on complete faith in our owner and his business record.
I think the "sportswashing" nonsense has provided the "fig-leaf" behind which to hide flagrant sabotage of a rival's business strategy.
