Sorry, "FREE" is simply a clearer way of explaining "extremely unbalanced" to most people.
It's not "clearer" since it's wrong. That's pretty much the opposite of "clearer".
I think a game that plays that badly for any player deserves whatever that player chooses to do within the scope of the game. If there aren't rules against playing spoiler or kingmaker (and there shouldn't be), then nobody should be suprised when a player chooses to take on either of those roles. Playing spoiler and kingmaker teaches the players more about competitive multiplayer gaming than making a completely impossible attempt to catch up.
The fact of the matter is that it's a bad game with bad design, precisely because it doesn't allow the player to simply walk away from a guaranteed loss the table with a simple "I concede".
To label legal play as poor "sports" is naive. Perhaps, you would rather I simply flip the table and rage quit? Is that the alternative you are hoping for?
Or is it an issue that you can't handle metagame play? Or that you wouldn't be the anointed player to receive the benefits of kingmaking?
Even if the game had a mechanism for quitting, by your logic, a player shouldn't be faulted for kingmaking without any intention of winning right for the start, right? Because it's legal within the scope of the game?
A game is what the player makesnof it. The fact that it forces unwinnable play is a fundamental flaw, aand no amount of nonsense changes that.