A fascinating exchange in court suggested the clout of global superstars like LeBron James could be a silver bullet to free Liverpool from its kit deal with New Balance.
The club is at loggerheads with the Boston based firm over Liverpool's plan draw a line under their seven-year partnership and give the lucrative rights to produce its kit to mega-brand Nike.
The current deal with New Balance is up in May, but the company is desperate to activate a clause in the contract which gives it the right to match any offer from a competitor.
Liverpool have been said to see the clause as a “commercial irritant” and made no secret of its inconvenience, but they also say there is no way New Balance can match Nike's promise of distributing Liverpool products through 6,000 “doors” or retail outlets.
Throughout a three-day trial at the High Court in London, which ended on Tuesday, neither side has disagreed that distribution is the central issue in the case.
But what initially seemed like a fringe issue seemed to gain significance during final submissions.
The offer from Nike contains a clause which promises marketing initiatives featuring “no less than three non-football global superstar athletes and influencers of the calibre of LeBron James, Serena Williams and Drake”.
The icons of basketball, tennis and rap are all signed with Nike – and Liverpool have argued New Balance cannot match their marketing power.
Key to the success of this argument is whether the power of brand James, Williams or Drake counts as a “material, measurable and matchable (MMM) term” in legal jargon.
In court, Daniel Oudkerk, QC, representing New Balance, tried to persuade judge Mr Justice Nigel Teare that both “marketing initiatives” and the “calibre of influencers” was too vague to be a measurable term.
Judge Teare raised a few chuckles in court when he said he initially believed the Nike clause meant “athletes of similar standing in their sport” and then had to check “who Mr Drake was.”
Mr Oudkerk replied: “As my Lord can immediately see, with respect, this is all far too vague.
“One could say 'you must spend a million pounds on marketing,' and then it could be measured straight away. But one has not got that here.”
However Guy Morpuss, QC, representing Liverpool, argued New Balance have “simply not reproduced” the Nike promises in their offer.
He suggested senior executives like New Balance vice president Chris Davis spent “a lot of their time” measuring the marketability of global athletes.
In Liverpool's written submissions, Mr Morpuss pointed out that Mr Davis had said in his witness statement: “We (New Balance) regularly monitor initiatives of competitors and other leading football clubs to see which marketing initiatives work and which do not.”
The statement mentioned New Balance had used the England cricket team and baseball star Francisco Lindor to promote Liverpool.
Judge Teare suggested there was an argument that so many methods could be used to measure the “calibre” of an influencer it becomes impractical as an MMM term.
But Mr Morpuss claimed the only thing that matters is whether it is measurable at all.
Judge Teare suggested: “It is a very short point, and if you are right it could have been a very short trial, it could have been over on day one without any evidence.”
As well as a potential magic key to unlock Liverpool's obligations to New Balance, the promise of celebrities with the influence of James is seen by club officials as vital for breaking into the enormous Chinese market.
Again distribution appears to be the most pressing issue, but Nike's decision to name-drop some of its most famous athletes could just have paid huge dividends.
A judgement is possible, but not guaranteed, on Friday.