A question about the fall of a secular person and the pleasure of a religious person from it

Hello,
In column 657 (another look at “You will not turn”), you wrote about secularists:
“I argued that the actions of a person who does not believe in God or the giving of the Torah have no religious significance. He is neither a bar mitzvah nor a transgressor. Even if he put on tefillin, he is considered as if he did not put it on, and even if he ate pork, there is no transgression here. In fact, there is religious significance only if it is done out of standing before (in a descriptive sense – regarding a mitzvah, or against – regarding a transgression) the Blessed One.
From this I argued that in our day the common secular person is not a bar mitzvah or a transgression, and there is no prohibition to hinder him and his commandments are not commandments (certainly there is nothing to add to the minyan, at least if he does not believe in God). I have often been asked how I explain the attitude towards infidels that is found in the sources of halakhic law, the Talmud and the Poskim. After all, there the assumption is that they are criminals, and there is a law that lowers and not raises, and all laws are perverted in their various forms.”

Following this position, I wanted to ask about a practical issue I encounter. A religious person who bought an annual subscription for soccer games, but some of the games are scheduled (only after purchasing the subscription) for Shabbat, and thus he cannot attend these games and fully utilize his subscription. According to the logic that there is no prohibition against hindering a secular person, is it permissible for him to sell a secular person admission to a game that takes place on Shabbat, since there is no significance to the secular person’s desecration of Shabbat, or is there still a prohibition because the religious person benefits from obtaining a refund for the subscription that he was unable to utilize, and thus benefits from desecrating Shabbat?

thanks

thanks