Here in the States, with the exception of soccer/association football, the announcer will say the score is “four to nothing” or “four to zero.” Soccer announcers copy the British model and say the score is “two nil.” But when announcing a team’s record, if there’s a zero involved they say “The Royals are four and oh” (oh instead of zero, like the letter O), or “The Cubs are five and oh against the Cardinals this season.” How do you indicate a record? Like if Liverpool FC is 5-1-0, would you say “Five one and nil”?
You don’t normally say their record that way. Its more typical to refer to the number points in the league that has resulted rather than number of wins/losses e.g. “The Royals have 42 points after 38 games and sit in 18th place” (as luck would have it I also follow the Royals, just a different one)
If you do talk about the actual number of wins it would be something like “Haven’t won in 8 games” or “Not been beaten at home this year” rather than just saying number of wins/losses/draws.
As @griffin77 says, the actual record isn’t usually spoken of in that way, because it’s not really seen as that important. If there’s an unusual feature about it, you might say that (especially a win record - “Unbeaten at home this year”, perhaps, or “Yet to win away”).
You do talk about the gap between teams in the league - “Three points clear of the relegation zone”, and goal difference might get a mention if it’s relevant. If an announcer wanted to make the win/loss/draw record clear, I’d expect it to be done in an informal way, “8 wins, 4 draws and no losses” sort of thing. I wouldn’t expect a nil, or an oh.
Another UK football fan here, confirming what’s already been said. We don’t talk about the played/win/lose/draw record like that so the question never really arises. There isn’t a situation in which that stat is more important than the points accrued and the league position attained so those are the primary stats reported.
Wait, so the Holyfield Harpies play eight matches, and each time they lose 17-16 (I know, but work with me). Every other team in the league wins exactly one game 17-16, and the rest of their matches end with a score of 1-nil. at the end of the season, the Holyfield harpies have accrued 128 points, and the rest of the teams have accrued scores between 17 points and 24 points.
Who’s at the top of the league? The team who haven’t won a single game, or the Chudley Cannonballs, who are unbeaten with 24 goals?
The points in football standings aren’t based on goals scored, they’re awarded for wins or draws. I believe that it’s typically 3 points for a win, 1 point for a draw, and 0 points for a loss.
Ah. Got it. For a minute, I thought maybe quidditch wasn’t the only game more whacked out than Calvinball. 
Correct, and every team in a division of 20 teams will play each of the other teams twice, home and away. Points are awards for the results as described above and the winner of the league is the one with the most points at the end of the season.
Which is why the number of points or the current position in the league is the only stat that really matters.
Also, note that, of the four major North American pro sports (football, baseball, basketball, and hockey), hockey does use a similar points system for determining standings (whereas, for the others, winning percentage is used).
The current NHL system awards a team 2 points for a win, 1 point for an overtime or shootout loss, and 0 points for a loss which occurred during regulation time. The single point for an overtime/shootout loss seems to be a holdover from the old system, where it was 2 points for a win, and 1 point for a tie; with the introductions of shootouts, there are no longer ties in the NHL.
Due to this, while wins and losses are discussed in hockey (perhaps moreso than in British football), it’s the points which are important, as that’s what determines playoff seeding. For example, this season, the Boston Bruins have been playing exceptionally well, and there’s much speculation about whether they will be able to set the league’s all-time records for both wins and points.
How about cricket? There are apparently no ties in cricket, or at least it’s extremely rare.
Ah, cricket.
In the UK, first class cricket is played over 4 days between county teams. The points system is a bit complicated, and explained here in detail:
Basically, you get 16 points for a win, 8 each for a tie, 6 each for a draw and nothing if you lose. However, you also get bonus points (which you get even if you lose) depending on how well you do in the early stages of the game.
Other competitions have their own scoring systems.
Beat me to it!
Fwiw, a tie is when both teams are all out and the scores are equal. A draw is when the team batting last is still batting at the end of play. It’s a draw because while they haven’t been bowled out, they also haven’t scored more than their opponents .
I always explain it that a draw is running out of time to finish the game, a tie is when the game finishes with the scores equal.
Ties are rare, draws are not.
I also occasionally hear that a team in the English Premier League has a game in hand. This means that they still have one more game on their schedule than the team that they are chasing or trying to hold off. Say Team A has 40 points after 30 matches and Team B has 38 points after 29 matches. Team B has a game in hand, meaning that they have one more opportunity remaining to pick up some points than Team A does.