If a new manager paid for a capped arena at the onset then he does have a significant advantage. Look at this example:
Manager A pays real world money for capped arena
Makes $100k a week in profits
Can spend profits on players to improve team and promote with an arena that is ready for the next level
Manager B doesn't pay real world moeny for capped arena
Makes $100k a week in profits(Probably less than Manager A since arena is smaller)
Has to spend at least part of profits on arena in order to prepare for promotion while spending on players too
If/when he promotes, has to spend money on area to be at a level to make money at the next level while upgrading players to stay competitive.
Sorry I missed your message earlier. Yes of course it's an advantage, otherwise people wouldn't pay for it. But it's only a speed advantage, they do not get any advantage during the basketball games. In my opinion, "pay-to-win" featuers would be something like paying to give your player a boost during games. I suggest only paying for speeding up progress, which makes it worthwhile to pay for, but in the end there is no difference in a basketball game between a paying and a non-paying manager.
I think it doesn't change the game for non-paying managers, progress is already slow and there are already established teams with better arena's and rosters etc. It still takes the same amount of time to reach the top for non-paying managers.
To emphasize, I'm a non-paying manager too, I don't want to pay for speed of progress and I don't want to lose games because my opponent pays real money to do so. I do like if others do pay money, so the game I play for free can be improved. Sticking with just cosmetic features to pay for will only generate a small amount of money I'm afraid, while offering speed of progress could generate a lot of money.