The oversimplification people are bringing to this issue is amazing, as is the trend that every runner now thinks he/she has a PhD in physics.
A. It's clear that World Athletics set these guidelines with the full coordination and collaboration with Nike. What seriously did you expect? Sponsors own the sport of running, just like they do with other sports which have a limited fan base. And in these sports there are very few brands who will make significant investments when the payoff is so low. So yeah it's a little sleazy, but to remove the sleaze is to remove the funding than enables promotion and viewership of the sport. If you can't deal with that then you're going to have a very hard time being a fan.
B. The financial issue Ross raises is ridiculous. Financial disparities impact everything in sports, particularly for less prominent sports. Whether you're talking about the elite or amateur level, those with financial means either from their own wallet or from external sponsors will always have an advantage. That's called capitalism and it doesn't always result in full equality.
C. Aggressive regulation in any industry almost always benefits well funded players and hurts poorly funded players. A 20mm stack height limit seems reasonable on the surface, but the collateral damage will be the elimination of smaller brands from the elite running scene, as well as brands which have focused on the highly cushioned market. Goodbye Hoka. Smaller brands will not be able to afford the research costs and go-to-market timelines required to innovate in a highly regulated market. That doesn't make it a bad idea, but those promoting the heavy regulation need to take some ownership of those consequences and stop acting like this is a simple no-brainer. Nike's dominance will only grow with aggressive regulation.
Bottom line is there should be some level of equipment regulation as there is in all sports. But serious people with the ability and willingness to understand and consider all pros and cons need to be leading that effort. And it seems like that describes a very small percent of those with a voice on the topic, most of whom think they can solve the problem with a simplistic view of it.