There has been a sense of dismay at Anfield since Tom Hicks, the Liverpool co-owner, said that he tried to line up Jürgen Klinsmann as manager, a slip of the tongue that may have financial repercussions for the club if, or more likely, when the time comes to part company with Rafael BenÍtez and to negotiate a settlement on his contract.

The Spaniard intends to fight on as manager, but with his position at the club weakened by Hicks’s remarkably frank admission about the unsuccessful move for Klinsmann, leading sports lawyers suggested yesterday that BenÍtez would be entitled to resign and pursue a claim for constructive or wrongful dismissal if he wished. While he has no intention of dragging the club through the courts at present – and has not abandoned hope of staying in the job – BenÍtez is understood to be aware that he would have a strong case if Hicks and George Gillett Jr, the other co-owner, refused to pay at least £5 million in accordance with a compensation clause in his contract, which runs until June 2010.

“This is classic constructive dismissal,” Peter Coyle, senior partner of Coyle White Devine, a firm of solicitors specialising in sport and dispute litigation, said. “If you effectively advertise someone’s position while they are still in it, that undermines the mutual trust that underpins any employment contract. I am certain things go on behind the scenes at football clubs all the time, but the fact that it has been made public makes it a different scenario because it undermines the manager.”

Hicks defended the approach to Klinsmann, who has chosen to take charge of Bayern Munich next season, by saying that it was merely “an insurance policy” in case BenÍtez left the club, but that argument would not be guaranteed to stand up in court.

“That doesn’t work for me,” Coyle said. “You insure yourself against things that aren’t within your control. Yes, there were reasons why he [BenÍtez] could have chosen to leave, but why would he do that? Whether he stays or goes is ultimately at the whim of the two owners of the club.”

Richard Linskell, an employment partner with Dawsons Solicitors, said: “Certainly I would say he [Hicks] was not well-advised. He may well, of course, have an American approach to employment law; in America they have what is called employment-at-will and they can say what they like and dismiss people without any repercussions. He may be coming from a legal system where he can say that sort of thing without fear of legal consequences. I couldn’t really say whether he has even thought about the issue or whether he has just shot from the hip, as people in that sort of position often do.”

The word from Anfield before last night’s FA Cup third-round replay at home to Luton Town was that Hicks had not intended to undermine BenÍtez, at a time when relations and communication had appeared to be improving, but there is a feeling from some within the club that the Texan’s comments have undermined the manager in the eyes of his players.

Whatever the long-term impact of Hicks’s comments, they have prompted an angry backlash from Liverpool supporters and from one of the club’s most eminent former players. Kenny Dalglish, who excelled for Liverpool as player and manager, said: “It certainly does no one any favours whatsoever. It affects the players, because they are looking for confidence. It affects the manager, because he’s looking for confidence. He doesn’t need the added pressure of this. There are always problems in your workplace, but if there’s a problem you sort it out behind closed doors, not publicly.”