I agree that companies sometimes spend money on questionable so-called "benefits" (e.g. company-paid bowling party or motivational speakers) -- that employees would rather have as extra cash in their pocket.
That said, I think company-paid lunch is an advantageous financial deal for employees since it's not taxed as income[0][1] and employees have to eat anyway.
I also hate having to get into a 150-degree hot car in the summer or fight freezing snow in the winter just to go buy a lunch. The alternative of bringing my own brown-bag lunch also has hassles because of the extra prep & planning at home. Sure, an on-site catered lunch benefits the employer -- but it also benefits the employees. It's a win-win.
[0] https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2015/08/14/exclusiv...
[1] daily free meals may be a gray-area tax loophole (it's not "occasional") but IRS isn't enforcing a strict interpretation of the law: https://www.irs.gov/government-entities/federal-state-local-...
In their infinite wisdom, the government decided to control the system a little too much, so most companies no longer use them. Even in the good times I didn't like the tickets at all. It was difficult to cash them if you couldn't use them (when we were deployed at customers' premises or sick, we organized diners to "laundry" the tickets) and they forced me to eat too much: I can't eat two courses + dessert in the usual restaurants every day without going overweight very quickly. Give me the money instead! Or a parking spot, or a ping pong table.
I know I would. It'd take the burden of thinking about what to have for lunch every day off me. When I was working in an office I'd either bring my own lunch (most of the time), decide to order (which usually required to join a group ordering from some place, or create and manage a pool), or to go out - again, where, what time, and with whom? Each of those options was a waste of time, energy and context.
The lesson I've learned through this, is that from the company POV, money spent in perks is worth more than money spent in salary, i.e. employees implicitly would rather have 300$ of free lunches paid by the company every month than +300$ on their salary.
It is in the interest of the company to provide good perks, as the overall perceived employee benefits will be higher than the equivalent in 100% salary.