From the reports I have read, the money was to be used exclusively for the construction of the stadium, so they had no discretion. However, this is irrelevant because I do not think the owners personally saw a nickel.
Don't be ridiculous. Money is fungible, it matters not that the funds were spent directly on the stadium; it's the exact same as putting that money in the owner's pockets. If the state didn't raise and spend that money, the owners would have had to do so themselves. Who do you think is going to make all the profits off of the events held at the new stadium? Those profits are directly subsidized by taxpayer dollars. Therefore, under your argument, these executives should be all taking drug tests.
Rather, it seems to me, at least ostensibly, the impetus of the program was not "anti-poor" sentiment but a desire to ensure taxpayers' dollars do not subsidize illegal drug use.
Do you qualify for ANY deductions or rebates on your taxes? Home mortgage interest deduction, student loan interest deduction? Have any dependents? If so, I'm sure you'd agree with me that you are making a compelling case that you personally should be drug tested before we allow you to take those deductions.
Not that any of this matters, other than academically, as the statute is unconstitutional and won't stand a challenge in court.
I will do my best not to upset your delicate disposition as to hopefully avoid being "ridiculous" to you but I suspect this is a futile endeavor as it is apparent to me anyone taking a contrary to position to your own will be "ridiculous". So, here are my ridiculous observations.
The city/county paying, out of their funds, for the construction of the stadium, in which the money goes directly to the stadium constructors and not the owners of the team, is not the same as taxpayers' dollars going directly to the individual to be spent solely and exclusively at their discretion, which is what we are talking about regarding welfare.
The stadium will be owned by Miam Dade County, which is to say Miami-Dade County paid for and received a stadium. As a result, they did not pay for a stadium belonging to the owners of the Marlins organization, so this is not, as you suggest, any monetary windfall to the Marlins. So, this is not anything close to welfare. Welfare is still as non-parallel to this sports example as before, and your comments do not change this fact.
Now, you make a allege they are parallel by several chains of causation and inferences, but it is the lack of any chain of causation and inference in regards to welfare which renders the sports example different from welfare (in this instance I am referencing your use of profits).
I might also add deductions in my taxes is different from welfare. All deductions do is permit me to keep more of the money I earned, i.e. permits me to keep more of my income by shrinking the amount of my income which may be taxed, which is vastly different than taxpayers' money going directly to a welfare recipient, i.e. free money.
Your attempt to make a comparison, and your attempted comparisons on the basis of profits and tax deductions, and rebates, is tenuous. They aren't parallel.