With all due respect as well, your post is full of factual inaccuracies and misunderstandings of the finances of sports teams.
Just as one example, the jumbotron at the new Cowboys stadium was estimated to cost $40m, not $1 billion. That you thought the latter number was even remotely in the realm of possibility raises a lot of questions.
Todd Boehly is one guy in an investment group that have been very successful with the Dodgers on and off the field. But they largely did things that other big baseball teams were already doing, especially monetizing their own local TV network and simply taking advantage of being in one of the biggest and richest markets via driving stadium revenue. The Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, etc do largely the same things, and did them before Boehly's group took over. It's not some special "meta ownership," it's just smart businessmen driving revenues in big markets in a sport that allows individual teams to negotiate their own local TV deals (unlike football). The Dodgers had terrible ownership for a long time, there was a lot of potential to simply do what other teams were already doing in the second biggest/richest market in the US, and they came in and did that. On the baseball side, they've also run the club very well but that has very little to do with Todd Boehly specifically.
The group that bought Chelsea is a fairly standard consortium of rich individuals plus private equity. The goal above everything else is to make money. Todd Boehly might be enjoying owning the team as the chairman, but he's not trying to lose money in the long run and his partners certainly wouldn't be in the consortium if they thought it was going to lose money. If they're spending a lot of money this summer, its with the calculation that investing in the success of the on-field product will ultimately drive revenues and asset value enough in the future to make it a profitable investment. They might be a bit more aggressive about it right now, but this is the same calculation made by tons of owners like the Kroenkes spending lots of money right now, Joe Lewis and Daniel Levy injecting cash into Spurs this summer, West Ham spending over 100m the last two summers, etc. There's nothing particularly special about it, really.
In the end, there are three kinds of owners:
1. Rich guys who like owning sports teams but also want to make money. They may be better or worse and Boehly definitely could be one of the better ones. You can do pretty badly here, like the Glazers, and Boehly certainly isn't that.
2. Rich guys who like owning sports team and don't really care if they lose money because they have so much of it. This is Roman.
3. States who own sports teams and really really don't care if they lose money. This is City and Newcastle and PSG.
At the end of the day, Boehly may end up being a really good owner but in the long run he's never going to spend as much money as somebody who simply doesn't care if he loses money (Roman) or, even more so, a state for whom the money is completely a drop in the bucket and is playing a much bigger game in terms of sportswashing and geopolitics than simple football.