The 10 year long dispute between Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL) and HMRC relating to the employment status of NG football referees, has finally come full circle – and in a striking ruling, the First-tier Tribunal has concluded that the referees were self-employed, despite the irreducible minimum of mutuality of obligation and a sufficient framework of control being present.
Even with those factors established, the Tribunal stood back and looked at the full picture and found this was a clear-cut rather “finely balanced” case in favour of PGMOL. Central to that conclusion was the finding that refereeing was “a hobby, albeit a very serious one” and that it “did not pay the bills” of the match officials.
Background – a case that has come full circle
Having started originally 10 years ago as a dispute between PGMOL and HMRC around whether payments to the referees constituted earnings for tax and NICs purposes, the case was originally found in favour of PGMOL by the first Tribunal in 2018, but was subsequently challenged through the Upper Tribunal, Court of Appeal and finally the Supreme Court. The last development was in 2024, when the Supreme Court confirmed that the irreducible minimum of mutuality of obligation and a sufficient framework of control were present in the individual match contracts (Ready Mixed Concrete stage one and two), effectively agreeing with HMRC’s position on those matters, but affirming that they are not conclusive.
It sent the case back to the First-tier Tribunal to carry out the RMC stage three assessment using the multi-factorial approach set out in Atholl House. The Tribunal’s job was to “stand back and consider the picture as a whole”, even though stage one and two had been satisfied. As the judgment makes clear, status decisions cannot be “a mechanical exercise of running through items on a checklist”, and what carries weight in one case may carry very different weight in another.
Mutuality of Obligation (MOO)
MOO had already been satisfied at the first stage – once a match was accepted, there was a clear work/wage bargain which continued through to submission of the match report. But the Tribunal focused on the nature and extent of obligations beyond just those in existence in the “individual contract”.
There was a clear lack of obligation on PGMOL to offer work, and a clear lack of obligation on the referees to accept work. Referees could and did decline appointments freely. More significantly, they could withdraw from a match even after accepting it, right up to arrival at the ground, without breaching the contract or facing any sanctions.
Although matches were regularly offered and accepted, this was driven by progression and ambition on the part of the referees rather than any contractual commitment. The referees were highly motivated individuals seeking to perform at the highest level, not workers bound into a continuous working relationship. The Tribunal ultimately found that, while the irreducible minimum was present, the obligations were “narrow, short-lived and suffused with choice”, pointing away from employment.
Control
Control followed a similar pattern. The Supreme Court had already confirmed that a sufficient framework of control existed, but the Tribunal’s task was to examine the nature, scope and purpose of that control at stage three.
A significant part of that framework stemmed from the wider regulatory environment, particularly the role of the Football Association. The FA sets the standards and rules referees must follow, and that distinction was very important.
The Tribunal found that the assessment and coaching systems were “advisory in nature”, and that the referees’ participation in them was driven by their influence on future appointments and progression through the “refereeing pyramid”, rather than by any submission to control over how they carried out their duties. The crucial factor was that on match day, the referee was “undoubtedly the person in charge”. There was no right or ability for PGMOL to intervene in real time while the essential task, officiating the match, was being performed.
That lack of control over the core function carried significant weight. When viewed in the round, the control exercised was regulatory, developmental and gatekeeping in nature rather than managerial or supervisory, and so employer-style control was found to be absent and this factor pointed away from employment.
Other factors
Integration – integration of the referees was clear at an operational level, with referees attending conferences, training and coaching, and being provided with kit. However, that did not amount to integration into PGMOL as an organisation. Their professional identity sat within the wider refereeing structure governed by the FA, not within PGMOL as an employer. The contrast with full-time Select Group referees, who are employees, reinforced that point.
Economic reality – the Tribunal placed weight on the finding that refereeing was a serious “hobby” that “did not pay the bills”. Most referees had full-time employment elsewhere, and officiating income was secondary. That meant there was no economic dependency on PGMOL, which is typically a key feature in employment relationships.
Financial risk – financial risk was largely absent, with referees receiving fixed match fees and having no opportunity to profit. On its own, that might suggest employment, but the Tribunal made clear that the absence of economic dependency significantly reduced the weight of that factor. Employment relationships typically involve both limited financial risk and economic subordination. Here, only one was present.
Other factors such as time commitment, length of engagement, exclusivity and the fact the referees could not send substitutes, were all considered but carried limited or neutral weight. Regularity of work reflected choice and ambition rather than obligation, and reliance on PGMOL for appointments was a feature of the sport’s regulatory structure rather than evidence of an employment relationship.
Not precedent setting, but influential
Although this is a First-tier Tribunal decision and therefore not binding precedent, it is difficult to ignore the significance of the outcome, particularly given the long history of this case and the involvement of the higher courts.
There is a right of appeal due to it being an FTT decision, so the door is still open for HMRC to take this further. At B&C, we are hoping HMRC will do the right thing and accept the outcome.
Key lessons for contractors (and engagers)
Whilst this was an employment status case and not an IR35 one, and decided on particularly unique facts, the principles remain the same. The key message is that IR35 and employment status is not a tick box exercise, nor can it be determined simply by identifying the presence of control or mutuality of obligation in isolation.
It is the overall picture that is important, and crucially in this case, the context behind the relationship. The nature of the work, the purpose it serves, and the surrounding framework all influence how each factor should be weighted.
As this decision shows, factors that might point towards employment in one scenario can carry different weight in another. Standing back and assessing the relationship as a whole remains the defining method in any status determination, and in this case, it led to a clear conclusion in favour of self-employment.