Subsequent secondary sales (resales) aside, Kicky, you have to assume that the original club members paid something for their membership and had a legitimate expectation (via agreement) to receive something in return. The original members may have paid $1,000 each, $10,000 each, $1,000,000 each, or whatever. I have not seen where it says what the amount was, but the higher that amount, the more you would expect them to receive in return. The first article actually says they were to receive "equity" in "the club":
"According to a lawsuit filed Friday in 3rd District Court, former Jazz owner Larry H. Miller created the club in 1987 as a "selective organization that entitled its members to exclusive rights and privileges," including equity in the club, ownership of "some of the best seats" in EnergySolutions Arena and a 20-percent discount on season tickets."
To me that sounds like the 20% discount was part of the consideration. The allegation of "exclusive rights and privileges," insofar as it includes "ownership of seats" may be misleading. It really only says "ownership of some of the best seats," and I don't think they are alleging that that benefit has been taken away from them. The "equity" in the club allegation is also ambiguous. I don't think "the club" really means the Jazz franchise, but merely the "Jazz 100 club." What assets that "club" holds to begin with is not specified.
Another interesting question was brought up by the Arena Digest. Even assuming that there was some alleged quid pro quo giving a monopoly on "scalping tickets," would it even be enforceable (legal)?