Your analogy doesn't really work for me because in your example what is being stolen is something of tangible value. Machado's actions don't have tangible value... unless you want to claim they give him advantage to win games and then it boosts his pay check from "dirty" plays adding to his value as a player.

But beyond your analogy I don't agree and here is why. If you had 2 players of exact same skill level and they get paid the same amount but one does nothing wrong and the other does do questionable plays, would you say the one doing questionable plays is benefiting? Not really in the strictest economic sense the questionable plays are just having no net effect. Benefiting/Rewarding here (the way I define it - which you seem to be differently) is increase in value. For me, you're mixing up positive and negative balances, which is the way value is usually determined in these situations.