Personally I prefer a league in which there are one or two who are dominant, as it's more interesting. Man City are now the 'pantomime villain', if you will (in a constructive sort of way), and as the underdogs we could cast ourselves as plucky heroes in the drama of that match yesterday, and what made it exciting was the possibility - and it was a real possibility - that we, the heroic underdogs, might cause an upset. That excitement would be gone if teams were more balanced or equal. I would argue that dominance by an elite is an ingredient to competition and a competitive drive in all, as long as the dominance does not become hegemonic.
None of that is to say a more equitable league would be uncompetitive, but I do think it would be boring.
Every era should have its 'pantomime villain' and 'exciting team' that the boys talk about in the playground and even pretend to support before they grow up and start following their local side. It fuels dreams and gives us people to admire.
Due to Man City's investment in your community, I as a Leeds supporter could attend your wonderful stadium and enjoy myself watching some of the best players in the world, and I had that hope in the dying minutes that we might just take a point, even snatch victory. I enjoyed it. I know the best team won, but I also know we tried. It's what the game is about.
