I'm way late learning about this. Maybe others read the news, but three different sets of fans have seemingly won suits against NFL (a few years back) then NHL (recently) and then the last win was against MLB. http://www.sbnation.com/mlb/2016/2/...details-extra-innings-mlb-tv-packages-cheaper I wonder if there's some way to sue a network like Fox based on the idea that you pay for services yet they strategically hold back other games to show on FStoGo. So, if one pays for FS1 and 2, FS+, and Deportes via satellite/cable yet that's not the full extent of the content. Same for BeIN. You pay for HD services through cable/satellite yet more content is pushed to connect that in theory requires another subscription to cable Internet. I'm not a lawyer so maybe the cases against NFL, NHL, and MLB were very different. Any lawyers among the group?
Those suits dealt with premium packages that give you access to all league games via extra channels or online. There's only so many hours of content you can show on a tv channel and only so much capacity on a content provider so you can't show everything. The leagues themselves were sued as well. Who do you sue here?
Those suits were primarily based on the regional "carve-up" of the teams' territories causing an unusually high # of blackouts in certain areas and the fact you had to subscribe to the entire premium package even if you only wanted to follow one team. There were anti-trust implications involved here which led the various leagues to settle with minimal concessions (i.e., you want to watch just your favorite team? Great, here's 5% of the product for 75% of the price of the full package). This has ZERO to do with the way international soccer is shown in the US (the closest analogue would be the MLS package). BeIN or Fox can put whatever matches they want on whatever channel(s) they want and it has nothing to do with antitrust law. This would be like suing ABC for canceling a TV show. Just because we don't like something doesn't mean we have a cause of action to sue.
Really I just want to sue Fox and BeIN for being idiots and repeating content multiple times instead of showing new content that I want to see. But in all seriousness, it seems like the carving up of rights by territory makes for some interesting situations relative to TV content that might parallel the cases listed in the SB Nation piece. If, for example, a network like BeIN buys rights to a league but then doesn't show games from that league (or shows very few games) then I should in theory be able to legally find other outlets to purchase viewing options for that league. Remember that the anti-trust issue only applies to MLB. None of the other leagues are protected in that way. Part of the argument presented in the piece is that all of the leagues have carved out territorial rights that are basically illegal (i.e., if I live in Chicago then I should be able to watch Steelers games here). Realistically, I know that there's no way to sue US-based soccer networks; rather, I posted that original piece because it links to media rights in the US and could have some interesting implications for how networks purchase rights and then make content available. I think NGSN was an interesting case because they were showing games that also aired on other networks here and via those networks' streaming options. I assume there will soon come a time when a money-backed IPTV provider will create a more robust version of NGSN and that will create an interesting test case for rights relative to TV networks (esp. when those TV networks don't actually show the leagues they own).
BeIN buying rights to a league and not showing it (or showing a handful of games) is no different than NBC buying/licensing a show from a studio and then not airing it (or a studio buying a script or TV/Film rights from an author but not making a show or movie from it). There's no fundamental right to access to any kind of entertainment.