Yes, I understand they get a negative return on investment. But apparently you and the downvoters don't understand the point I was making. Let me put it another way. If I offered to sell you my used car for a million dollars and you accepted, did you get anything in that deal? Yes, you got a used car. You wasted a shit ton of money, and made an absolutely terrible financial decision that will have a near 100% negative return, but you still received a car.
This is as opposed to you giving me $1 million and then giving the car to your rich friend. In that case, you get nothing. That would be like the city funding a stadium and then giving ownership of the stadium to the sports franchise. That is all I was pointing out. The commenter I responded to said it would be nice if the taxpayers saw something. They do, they get a stadium. An overpriced stadium that will provide a negative return on investment that should not have been funded in the first place, but at least it's better than taking out all the debt and just gifting it to a billionaire sports owner.
Clearly the best decision is to not use public financing for stadiums at all. That much is obvious, but it's not the point I was addressing.