The enormous interest generated by last week’s takeover of Liverpool Football Club by American investors George Gillett and Tom Hicks reflected the recognition that foreign football ownership, which had recently seemed unthinkable, is now becoming the norm.

The fact that, as with ManU and Aston Villa, Americans are involved has highlighted the contrasting cultures in sports governance and ownership between the UK and the US. But if this trend goes on we may find that the legal systems, too, start to rub up against one another — and that may not be a comfortable experience.

Bearing in mind the succession of recent instances — the NatWest Three, the Morgan Crucible cartel case and the online betting ban — where UK business people have fallen foul of US law, there’s a lot to be said for treading with caution where you may end up having to deal with the US authorities.

As Felicity Reeve, of the leading sports practice Bird & Bird, commented last week: “As a firm we don’t do any US sports law, partly because it is so different from Europe but also because, frankly, we don’t want to take the risk of getting involved at a time when the Americans are being so energetic in pursuing cases globally.”

Despite its success, football is, unfortunately, going through a murky time. The bung controversy is dragging on and across Europe there is ground violence and match and referee-fixing scandals. And, because there is a strong betting factor in football now — from club sponsorship through to onsite gaming — there are numerous threads that someone in the US Justice Department may some day be tempted to pull.

John Reynolds of White & Case is frank about these concerns. He points out that the Liverpool takeover is fronted by an English-registered vehicle but if a US-listed corporate were to become an investor then the door would be opened for the American authorities to become involved. “Assuming the club owner is a US listed company or the subsidiary of a US listed company then, under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the chances are that some American regulator somewhere is going to start taking an interest in what is going on. In addition, there could be issues under Sarbanes Oxley certifications, including those regarding the efficacy of compliance systems, and descriptions of risk factors and compensation schemes for key executives.”

But it is not just the American authorities the clubs may have to face. There are the fans, too. Drawing on the experience of the number of class actions launched by disappointed fans of the Indianapolis motor race a couple of years ago, when an early incident meant that only six cars completed, Reynolds contemplated the possibility of a future scenario where a group of US fans might sue a club in the event of a scandal. “You could have the situation where club members in America who have bought club merchandise, maybe from a club shop in the US, launch a class action if a club was caught out in something like a doping or match-fixing scandal. They could argue that they had invested their time, money and emotion in what they believed to be a clean club and that they have been let down through management failure.” (The class action in the case of the Indianapolis race, it should be remembered, ran into millions of dollars.)

And it need not even be any wrongdoing that gets the Americans agitated. US sports offer the great security blanket that nobody ever gets relegated. In England big names do come a cropper with some regularity. The rapid decline of Leeds from Premiership Champions League contenders to propping up the bottom of the championship is a classic illustration of how far and fast a football investment can be devalued. That is why one of the few consolations for an investor is the real estate owned by a football club in the shape of its ground. It was notable, then, that as part of the Liverpool deal the new owners gave an assurance that they would not do a ground-share deal with their near neighbours, Everton. Indeed, it was a critical ingredient in the deal going ahead.

But does that assurance have any force? “No, it is not enforceable in law,” conceded Michael Prince, of DLA Piper, who was involved in the deal. “Nonetheless, it would be a brave person who would break such a promise.”

But five years down the line the US owner of a club facing financial meltdown might be quite happy to sell off the ground. Or even close down the club entirely. Indeed, the odd thing about the US franchise arrangement — which so offends European grassroots sensibilities — is that it gives legal protection to the club at least for the length of the contract.

But in this country the owners can do whatever they want. Can we be confident that some of the flakier foreign owners now coming into the UK game might not be tempted to liquidate entirely a loss-making team? I wouldn’t bet on it (at least not through an internet gaming site).

Explore Law

• Corporate Law

• Public Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Student Law

• Law Reports

Times Recommends

• Do inquiries waste public money?
• Quirks, oddities and wit: a continuing saga of the common law
• Are high costs failing those looking for justice?