So the argument "but it's good for them", no matter how true, is simply inapt -- it is not the right criterion on which to judge the legality of the action.
Did he say anything about the legality of it? He said that the sports bar owners should be compensated (yes, he actually put the words in your mouth, but that's beside the point) for encouraging lots of people to watch ad-supported content. Everything you say about that not actually being the case is true, but is orthogonal to his point that it should be.
I'm not saying I agree with him. I'm just saying that you missed his point.
Arguments that they are deciding poorly are not equivalent to arguments that they do not have the right to make the decision.
He didn't say that they do not have that right. He either said they ought not to have that right or that they ought not to exercise it, depending on how you interpret what he wrote.