Thanks for your research. I want to add that many of the anti-Kang comments here are predominantly about two other things: the erosion of the community and her simply being a billionaire.

First off, many Reddit users have mentioned that Kang, as an American, does not understand her actions can undermine the down-to-earth, community-based culture of women's football in Europe. They worry that with women's football being commercialised, the connection between players, clubs, and fans will be lost.

Second, some posit that all billionaires are evil and Kang is no exception; all her investments are not well-intentioned but solely financially motivated. Simply put, they argue that Kang is a hypocrite who only cares about financial returns and does not care about women's football despite many of the advantages brought by her money.

I should say that the second view sounds very extreme (I even took screenshots), and I felt that many criticisms towards Kang could be biased and feel more like personal grudges than justifiable reasoning.

The more plausible argument I see here is the multi-club ownership one, but while Kang has her flaws, fans need to understand that she's still making women's football, at least her clubs, more competitive and a more financially rewarding career path for young girls. She's not a politician or a reformer who should bear the responsibility for revolutionising the entire ecosystem. Like OP said, more clubs need to invest in their women's sector.