For fusion to be economical, it not only has to generate more energy than you put in, you have to be able to have a lower price per kWh produced than alternative sources of energy--that serve the same purpose (i.e., base load, peaking, whatever).
Most fusion options these days, in particular ITER, need a steam-conversion step to convert heat into electricity. Coal and conventional nuclear also need a steam-conversion step to generate electricity from heat.
The argument I read is that any form of energy that requires a steam conversion step is going to cost more than direct conversion (no steam cycle) technologies: natural gas turbines burn the gas directly in a turbine to spin it like a jet. Solar cells directly convert sunlight into electricity. Wind turbines directly convert moving air into electricity.
Given what I've read, how is fusion energy, which requires exquisite technology, large capital investment in both the fusion plant and the steam conversion plant, going to produce electricity more cheaply than gas, wind, solar, tidal? Geothermal doesn't require fuel to generate the heat, so maybe it can be economically competitive.
Note that coal plants, which require steam conversion of heat to electricity, are being phased out in large degree not because they're polluting, but because they cost a lot compared to alternatives.
The whole argument is that even if you can get fusion to work, it's going to be uneconomical.
In light of this argument, how does fusion "win" as a competitor in the market?