I am trying to prove the following assertion:
Let $K\subset L$ be fields, let $f,g\in K[x]$ be such that $f\mid g $ in $L[x]$, then $f\mid g$ in $K[x]$.
We clearly have that $fh=g$ for some $h\in L[x]$. We want to show that $h\in K[x]$. Suppose that $h\notin K[x]$. I am not sure how to argue towards a contradiction from here.
Let $\varphi:K[x]\to L[x]$ be the inclusion. Denote by $\langle f\rangle_L$ the ideal generated by $f$ in $L[x]$ and by $\langle f\rangle_K$ the ideal generated by $f$ in $K[x]$. I claim that $\varphi^{-1}(\langle f\rangle_L)=\langle f\rangle_K$. This will prove your statement.
Indeed, $\varphi^{-1}(\langle f\rangle_L)$ is an ideal of $K[x]$ and $K[x]$ is a principal ideal domain, therefore $\varphi^{-1}(\langle f\rangle_L)$ is generated by some polynomial $f'\in K[x]$. Since $f\in\varphi^{-1}(\langle f\rangle_L)=\langle f'\rangle_K$, this means that $f=u\cdot f'$ for $u\in K[x]$. Conversely, $\varphi(f')\in\varphi(\varphi^{-1}(\langle f\rangle_L))\subseteq\langle f\rangle_L$, so (remember that $\varphi$ is just an inclusion) basically $f'\in\langle f\rangle_L$, i.e. $f'=v\cdot f$ for some $v\in L[x]$.
Sticking the two equations together, this means $f=uvf$ and canceling $f$ implies $u=v^{-1}$, so $u,v\in K$. This means that $\varphi^{-1}(\langle f\rangle_L)=\langle f\rangle_K$ as claimed.
Finally, $g\in\langle f\rangle_L$ is just the same as saying $f\mid g$ in $L[x]$ and equivalently over $K$.