This Reuters story explains that
Seven New England Patriots fans sued the National Football League on Tuesday, asking a judge to reverse a decision by the league to strip the team of a first-round pick in this month's draft over allegations of underinflated footballs. In a lawsuit filed in Boston federal court, the fans contend that NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell acted unlawfully when he took away two draft picks as punishment for the "Deflategate" scandal, in which the team was accused of manipulating balls to better meet star quarterback Tom Brady's tastes in a January 2015 playoff game against the Indianapolis Colts. … The fans who brought the lawsuit, which alleges the league violated the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act [RICO], a charge typically levied against mob bosses … .
Let's assume that the plaintiffs — pro-football consumers (or, in common parlance, fans) — have a good RICO claim. What about standing? Maybe the fans are season-ticket holders alleging economic injury because the Deflategate penalty could reduce the value of their tickets? Seems pretty speculative. (The New England Patriots, though, would presumably suffer injury on the ground that a lost draft pick injures the team's bottom line. I doubt a court would say that the Patriots lack standing, though the team's claim of economic injury also would involve some speculation.)
But economic injury aside, are the fans going to say they have a "legally protected interest" in fandom? A team that is not as good as it might be causes fans psychic injuries. (I'm a Philadelphia sports fan, and I suffer that type of injury nearly every day of every year.) The emotional highs and lows are what being a fan is all about. Courts do recognize non-economic psychic injury as a basis for a plaintiff's standing in some contexts, and yet I doubt it would be recognized here.