If your sponsor is a "Tour or nothing" sponsor, then your financial backing is not as strong as it would appear in terms of its numerical value. "Strong" financial backing also requires stability - it's easier to attract riders to a team which has a reliable backer.
This is why teams like HTC folded - they had coasted on the T-Mobile payoff for a while, but because they didn't have an identity to fall back on that could survive as a smaller sized team or without the guaranteed column inches of Cavendish, they couldn't find a sponsor. It's why Aqua Blue Sport's owner took his ball and went home in a huff because he got given more than most ProTeam owners do in year 1, and so wasn't prepared for it when he got fewer invites in year 2 than he had in year 1 due to more competition for wildcards.
The proposition of Adams' team seems to be predicated on being World Tour, it hasn't really got an identity in terms of the races it focuses on or the riders it takes on, and it's just sort of dropped into the same position that Dimension Data was in before it. If you look at the other teams that were in the relegation battle, they all had some kind of identity that can also help them survive at a lower level or attract sponsors who are prepared to weather the storm. Lotto are a Belgian classics team with a strong sprint lineup. Movistar are the Spanish team who focus on hilly and mountainous races. BikeExchange are Australia's team, with the more interesting Yates brother. EF are North America's WT team (I know Trek are registered in the US, but EF feels more North American and has more such riders) and have a strong Latin American contingent as well as a divisive but charismatic and vocal team owner - plus they've just signed Richard Carapaz.
There are a number of problems with the UCI's points system, definitely. Overvaluing small races is definitely one of them (Arnaud de Lie is worth more UCI points this season than Richard Carapaz, by the way). Giving points down to very low positions in races with reduced fields is another. Encouraging "pop-up" races like we used to see in the Women's calendar (.1-status races that would appear for a year pre-Olympics but only after the main teams had set up their race calendars, to enable other countries to qualify riders for the Worlds and Olympics) if a particular team in trouble had the ear of their national authority (for example, it would have been highly suspicious if there were suddenly a large number of .1 races with dubious fields appearing all over the mountains of northern Spain if Movistar were threatened and RFEC got scared about not having a Spanish team at the top level, and likewise if EF were in trouble and suddenly a large number of US one-dayers to coincide with the Baltimore one-day race appeared when teams had already set their calendars). And of course, the pandemic being treated differently in different countries has had a drastic effect as well, with some countries opening up sooner and others later, and riders being yanked from races mid-race for contacts or positive tests as well.
However, at the same time, it's hard to find a reasonable points system whereby, based on the results of the last three years, Israel isn't in the relegation zone of the existing WT teams, it just might be different teams scrapping at the bottom with them (e.g. Arkea and Cofidis if the smaller one-dayers weren't rated so highly given their successes in the smaller Coupe de France events). I think that is why they get a bit of stick for the sour grapes. Crashes and illnesses happen, as any team can tell you. Ewan's injuries and Mas' early season crashes are a large part of why Lotto and Movistar ended up where they did, but you have to accept that's part of bike racing. But if, for example, EF got relegated they could point to the drastic reduction of the American calendar they would have expected plenty of points from, with Utah, California and Colorado no longer running post-pandemic. If Movistar got relegated they could point out to the points lost by Supermán's tantrum in the 2021 Vuelta, the subsequent mess of trading out of his contract with Astana, and the poaching of Carapaz at the start of the three year period due to bad faith negotiating by Acquadro. What do Israel have to point to that would have made a decisive contribution to their survival? They're 20th out of 20 by a comprehensive margin. The teams that were down there with them either have better quality riders than Israel, or were proactive about the points hunt sooner.
And they tied too much of that "strong" financial backing up on ageing riders for their name value, gambling on what they had left in the tank.