Honestly, it's a little weird that this happened to Spider-Man, when they already had a headlining character they've could've connected to Tony Stark and it wouldn't be out of place:
Ant-Man
Scott Lang in the comics was a supporting character to Tony, and the Avengers, and they were pretty good friends. They were close enough that Cassie even thought of him as a surrogate uncle before she became a superhero herself. Hell, in the early issues of Young Avengers, set after Disassembled where Scott died, they both grieved and bonded together over Scott, while Tony tried to convince Cassie not to be a superhero because he doesn't want to deal with the pain of losing her too.
So, did they just totally miss the potential this could've had for the MCU? They had the perfect connection right there, and it would've made sense. Plus, I think having Tony be a mentor to Scott, while both were grown men, would be better than the surrogate father that had Tony become for Peter. Scott could've been a good foil to Tony, both of them having similarities (tech-based heroes with a checkered past, and a snarky demeanor) but differences for contrast (Tony's rich while Scott is working class, Tony doesn't have kids while Scott looks after his daughter, Tony is a leading figure while Scott is a support). Then in Endgame when Tony and Pepper have Morgan after Scott's apparent demise, they could've had Cassie be a surrogate sister for the girl and looking up to "Uncle Tony". That would set the stage perfectly for Cassie to become a hero of her own as Stature, because she grew up around them.
Man, this stuff writes itself.
But do you agree that in the MCU context, having Tony play heavily into Scott's arc would've made a lot more sense than Peter's?