"a practice that costs the U.S. Treasury $146 million, according to a 2012 Bloomberg analysis"

The problem with this is that economics isn't black and white and as simple as this. First, you must consider what building a stadium entails - it involves thousands of jobs in the local economy, from construction to just about any other aspect you can think of in that city / town - Las Vegas as we know it today was directly the result of the workers on the Hoover Dam turning it from a small town into the entertainment capital of the world - it also creates commerce and infrastructure for that town, often high volume roads to the stadium, better transport links and the stadium it's self being used to cater for events outside of sport, such as confrences and concerts etc.

It creates tourism as fans visit, but most of all, it creates consumption - The direct and indirect benefits of a stadium have large economic and social benefits and investment in these facilities can be crucial to the economic survival of some small businesses (again, the indirect impact being the tax these business pay and the employment they create - 5 workers out of a job is 5 less workers paying tax and 5 more workers on social welfare) and can be a focal point of a local economy.

Don't do it Obama! Yes, there are political and government revenue generating incentives on the face of it, but a detailed cost / benefit analysis I guarantee would prove that this is destructive to local economy and government revenue generation as a whole, and on top of that, removing a tax loophole such as the stadium bond scheme means that these people will just invest their money in one of the countless other tax incentivised loopholes and there will be little to no increase in tax collection as a result, just an negative impact on localities, felt most by the smaller and more vulnerable cities / towns.