I have argued this before, and I think there are direct political/real-world parallels too.
You can take a path all about responsibility where everyone fends for themselves (and you cop collateral damage when people invariably drop the ball or act selfishly) or you can take a path that maximises the chances of success for all, to account for inevitable issues. These organisations are not all big enough or rich enough to recruit perfectly and cover for poor performers. If you have an office of 2-5 people, you can easily be at the mercy of someone lazy, someone distracted or incompetent, someone disgruntled because they haven't been paid properly, one extended sickness, a poorly timed holiday, etc.
A league that provides a base, oversight and tools to improve chances of success is more likely to win through. These clubs compete far more on court than off-court where they all have a common interest.
Oversight and tools need not be expensive. An example of oversight is a monthly audit of all teams' social media efforts (30-60 mins). An example of a tool is having one consultant provide a common social media schedule/strategy for use by all clubs (on a tight budget, that'd be $300-1,000 across all clubs total).
The base structure is potentially more expensive, but I refuse to believe there aren't ways to keep more modest clubs competitive without restricting richer clubs. There are lots of flexible methods available: salary cap, points cap, import allowances, schedule, extension of the league, etc.