It's either an ineffective fig leaf, or it's to help maintain the dominant position of the big clubs. It doesn't stop clubs getting into awful debts, nor does it promote genuine fair play... it just means the smaller clubs can't compete with the bigger clubs and their huge revenue streams on a consistent basis (you have one of years, etc, but basically the small clubs will stay small and the big clubs stay big).
I do think whichever thinktank implemented it had honest intentions to make all things equal but it needs revision as it's ******** in it's current form.
I doubt the big clubs crying about other clubs becoming better than them really had an effect on it's inception.