Again, putting content behind a paywall in a multiplayer environment is detrimental to the gameplay experience. Commanders gets you new tactical choices, choices that you only have because you payed for them.
That is fine in singleplayer. Comp stomp away, but let me have the ability to NOT play against people who buy commanders.
Let people use filters that excludes Commanders, and this wouldn't be an issue at all. A site like Coh2.org could easily have a "Coh2 Commander Filter" with community approved Commanders. Of course this will lead to other problems (like longer ques), but it will put and end to the 'unfairness' argument.
A lot of people are missing the point with the DLC from Relic. Monetization is fine, but selling DLC should not come at the expense of multiplayer balance and quality, and that has been the case with almost every Commander so far. No doubt Sega is pushing the agenda on DLC (I dearly hope), but it can be made with much more elegance and thought then in it's current form which steamrolls the game and forces new and contrived meta games after every release.
This pretty much sums it up, I don't think filtering out commanders is a good solution, but you did a good job of articulating the flaws in the current system.
Also, I really don't approve of commanders that change the fundamental nature of the game. Soviet Industry when it was first released comes to mind. In its current state it is in a good spot, but it took way to long to get there. I really, really worry about how this no retreat commander will change the game. If its fun to play with, AND against, and it is balanced on release, then great. If it makes for frustrating, gimmicky game play that the consensus holds OP, then don't even bother releasing it. Based on Relics track record, I'm guessing we get the latter for a few months of game breaking imbalance and fan outrage before it gets fixed. Just in time for more game breaking commanders to be released. But hey.......gotta make money right? Blech.