Here's the thing.
A left tackle ( using "The Blind Side" here ) has a particular set of physical properties. If suddenly, for nutritional or environmental reasons, there are 10x of the number of people who can qualify physically as a left tackle, then the locus of competition will move elsewhere.
This, IMO, is what we see now. Paul's not advocating it ( again, IMO ) he's commenting on it. We are without the massive corporations of the 1950s to absorb people of "ordinary" ability[1]. Then again, I get stories of how those jobs slowly killed people.
[1]Yes, I hate that sentence but that's how the story goes...
Investing in inner city kids is a great idea, but it's hard to do. Using yet another sports film as a source, "The Street Stops Here" talks about Bob Hurley.
You don't find a Bob Hurley every day. Bob Hurley is a retired parole officer. It's clear from the film that he'd do nearly anything to keep kids out of prison. This is his white whale; he doesn't play fair and he doesn't care who objects to it.
Money will not help with that. Finding what can be done is a profoundly difficult problem.
Russel's main thesis is that people often don't succeed because of their circumstances, that they deserve help, and that we need to build them up.
That doesn't contradict PG's main thesis. PG's main thesis is that helping the less well off is indeed a noble & worthy goal, but the best ways to help their quality of life, in an absolute level, may sometimes involve economic systems/policies that increase income inequality. That enabling income inequality and helping the poor, aren't necessarily in conflict with one another.
The 2 theses given above don't contradict one another in any way. If someone really takes issue with PG's essay, and many people like myself do, please actually write a response that addresses his main point in a fair way.