The opening arguments have been outlined on the first day of New Balance and Liverpool's court case over the future of the club's kit deal.
And there was laughter in court after the barrister representing Liverpool held up a replica kit.
Guy Morpuss QC, representing the Reds, displayed the club’s “iconic” home shirt as he discussed distribution around the world.
Mr Justice Teare, presiding over the case, asked if the kit changes every season.
Mr Morpuss replied: "It does but it stays red, my Lord”.
And he added that "it won’t have New Balance on”, to chuckles in court.
That light-hearted moment came as made their opening arguments.
American sportswear firm New Balance is challenging the club’s decision not to renew its £45m per year kit deal when the existing contract runs out in May.
New Balance has produced Liverpool’s kit for several years - and in the last two seasons, fuelled by major success on the pitch, has boasted the two highest-selling strips in club history.
But Nike wait in the wings. Liverpool are understood to believe a new kit deal with the Oregon-based giants could around the world.
The dispute has now reached the Commercial Court in London, a subdivision of the High Court.
New Balance claim that a clause in their existing contract means they have the right to "match" any offers from a competitor. And the company suggests they have successfully matched Nike’s offer.
But Liverpool have accused New Balance of not being “genuine” with promises of what it can deliver.
Daniel Oudkerk QC, for New Balance, was the first to outline his side's position. Mr Oudkerk said the company had the right to match any offer from a third party.
He said: “The club had an offer in June 2019. The club initially refused to disclose the terms of the offer to New Balance.
“It’s perfectly clear New Balance were entitled to see the terms of the offer...and the parties were happy to continue the terms of their relationship.”
Mr Oudkerk says New Balance insisted on seeing the offer, and then agreed to match the “Material, Measurable, and Matchable” terms apparently on the table from Nike.
He moved on to discuss "the way the club deals with distribution and good faith" and said the question is "whether New Balance can match" the other offer.
Mr Oudkerk said any damages paid by Liverpool would not remedy the potential loss of the contract for New Balance.
He stressed New Balance had delivered record-breaking sales of Liverpool kits and sought to dismiss the idea distribution terms offered by Nike could not be met by New Balance.
Mr Oudkerk said that New Balance's promise to match Nike's apparent '6,000 doors' [shops where LFC items are sold] over the next five years is genuine, and now for the first time distribution will be written into the contract.
He said: "We have 40,000 stores. The position is, we have committed to match the terms.”
And he said the club suggested in June that New Balance would not be able to match the Nike deal - before they had seen the offer from New Balance.
Mr Morpuss, representing Liverpool, then addressed court to outline the club's position.
He said: "This action is really an attempt by New Balance to use a matching clause for a purpose for which it was never intended.”
On the issue of 'doors' and global outlets where Liverpool shirts could be sold, he added: “My friend trots out the figure of 40,000 stores. It is utterly fanciful to say that New Balance could get things into anywhere close to 40,000 stores.”
He said no secret has been made over the club using distribution as a “stick” to beat New Balance with to get more money from them.
He said this is a common commercial practice in negotiation and indicated New Balance accepted that.
He said if New Balance could not increase money paid up front, then it would have to match the distribution offered by Nike.
Mr Morpuss said witness statements from New Balance showed that the company worried about Nike being able to offer 6,000 stores.
He claimed that emails from Chris Davis, a director at New Balance, said the company needed “aggressive projections” to reach 6,000 doors so they could match the renewal clause.
Mr Morpuss told the court: "[New Balance] have a record of telling Liverpool things that were wrong. They gave figures of the number of doors that were grossly overstated."
The case opened today and is listed for two further days on Monday and Tuesday next week.
