First, I don't feel like you're picking on me. I just don't agree with what you're saying, and oviously you don't agree with what I'm saying. It's a fair discussion.
Of course they make money off of ticket sales but they make more off of concessions and merchandise bought during the game. While the upper echelon of tickets generates a lot of revenue, the majority of the seats in a stadium are priced below the median price of a ticket. The people sitting in these seats will typically spend as much (or more) in soft costs (food/merch) as they do on the actual ticket, and some will spend a tremendous amount more.
So that takes me to one of my original points - the Yankees don't want the price of a ticket to be less than face value, and the Yankees have already made their money off of Buyer A, who paid face value, and yet Buyer A now has a work event and can't go to the game, so he/she wants to recoup some of what was paid and sell the ticket below face value. The Yankees haven't lost ANY money with this transaction, and in fact they will have gained money.... because instead of Buyer A not using the ticket and the seat goes empty (thus no soft purchases), Buyer A sells to Buyer B and now there's a butt in the seat and automatic soft sales. It is a win for the Yankees, not a loss. If Buyer A has to sell the ticket for at least face value, Buyer B may not want to pay it and there's no transaction to be had - again, no soft sales and the Yankees have only made money off of the original transaction and not been able to double it.
I'm not sure how StubHub changes any of that equation since they're only dealing with the secondary market, and as I point out, it's the secondary market that helps to ensure butts in the seats resulting in guaranteed soft purchases.