Wait a minute...so you think the solution to "toxic inclusive-exclusiveness" is for them to have ranked Masters League cup tournaments where the barrier to entry is level 40 maxed out and unlocked legendaries that would cost the average player a metric shitton of stardust and rare candies? Masters, where the number of meta relevant options is a fraction of what Great League has? You talk about how it takes far too long for people to invest in Great League Cup Mons... how do you think it would be any better for people to invest in Masters? You gonna max new Mons to lvl 40 every month when they do a new Masters Cup theme? Also, what about lower level players who want to play in one of these cups? "Sorry, your Mons aren't big enough, no Masters cup for you" (Masters is literally locked as a battle option unless you have enough high level Mons) is the reply they'd get. That's 100% the toxic exclusiveness that you claim you're trying to avoid. Like, wat?
The tournaments are very clearly held at the Great League for the following reasons:
• GL has the widest variety of Mons of the 3 leagues. Masters has the fewest.
• GL, overall, has the lowest investment costs of the 3 leagues. Masters has the highest.
• GL is the most accessible to players, regardless of their level. Masters is the least accessible.
So good job. Your argument literally makes zero sense. Also, if you don't like the Silph League tournaments, then don't do them. They're purely for fun and have zero impact on your game.