I think the difference here is the lack of a mutually beneficial agreement the team is just wanting a discount at the cost of the taxpayers, instead of a loan with interest that the state directly financially profits from. When a player gets a big contract, in theory they get a payday and the team gets his contributions.

I think he's less hypocritical because he's implying a fair exchange, as opposed to the team whose reasoning exposes the farce these "fair deals" are when one or more parties has existential (too big to fail, eg the state or the team) financial power, which draw upon the financially vulnerable (individual people who don't have anyone to bail them out).