In Professional Game Match Officials Limited v HMRC [2026] TC09870, the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) found that referees engaged by the company were not employees. The long-standing case emphasises that a 'multi-factorial' approach is required when determining employment status.
The appeal concerned determinations issued to Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL) that covered a two-year period. HMRC deemed that match fees paid to referees were employment earnings for both Income Tax and National Insurance purposes.
The long-running appeal began in 2018 with the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) ruling in PGMOL's favour, finding that the match appointments did not amount to contracts of employment due to insufficient 'Mutuality of obligation' and insufficient control.
- HMRC Appealed to the Upper Tribunal (UT), which agreed with the FTT's original decision and dismissed HMRC's appeal.
- HMRC then Appealed to the Court of Appeal (CoA), which ruled that the FTT had erred in law regarding the mutuality of obligation and control points. The CoA remitted the case to the FTT for reconsideration.
- PGMOL Appealed to the Supreme Court, which held that the minimum requirements of mutuality of obligation and control necessary for a contract of employment between the referees and PGMOL were satisfied in relation to the individual contracts.
- The Supreme Court remitted the case to the FTT to decide whether, in the light of all relevant circumstances, the individual contracts were contracts of employment.
PGMOL provided referees and other match officials for matches in the Premier League, the FA Cup and the English Football League. The referees were engaged by PGMOL under an overarching contract covering the whole football season.
- The referees were all part-time, working voluntarily, usually alongside full-time employment, and were paid only when they attended a match.
- The referees had total control of the pitch, subject to FA regulations.
- Off the field, PGMOL rules applied, including rules about promoting products and services, match day procedures, procedures for declaring interests, an agreement to 'abide by' PGMOL's fitness and training protocol, annual fitness tests and a requirement to sign a code of conduct.
- Referees could accept or decline each appointment offered to them. When they failed to attend a match, they were not paid. They did not have to provide an invoice to get paid.
- HMRC challenged the referees’ Employment Status and raised Regulation 80 determinations for PAYE and section 8 decisions for Class 1 National Insurance Contributions (NICs) on the basis that the referees were employees.
The FTT's task in this case was to decide on the third stage of the three-part test in Ready Mixed Concrete, which looks at the 'other provisions' of the contract.
- In this case, the provisions included the relevant terms of the individual match engagements to determine whether they were consistent with being a contract for services.
- To do this, the FTT applied a multi-factorial evaluation to get the 'bigger picture'.
The FTT found:
- An overall impression of the situation needed to be formed by the accumulation of relevant features to determine whether, viewed objectively, the match engagements were properly characterised as employment contracts.
- The outcome depends on the 'nature, quality and weight' of factors considered together rather than on their single presence.
- The factors considered were:
- Mutuality of obligation
- There was no obligation for PGMOL to offer the referees work. Similarly, there was no obligation for the referees to accept any work offered.
- Referees accepted offers on a voluntary basis and were free to decline due to other work or personal commitments.
- Additionally, even after an offer was accepted, the referees had a right to withdraw up to the point of their intended arrival at the football ground.
- Withdrawal did not breach the contract or result in any disciplinary action by PGMOL. This feature was fundamentally inconsistent with the structure of employment, and significant weight was placed on it.
- Neither party was bound in an ongoing or stable relationship of mutual engagement.
- Control
- A structured framework was operated by PGMOL, which governed appointment, fitness, integrity, assessment, coaching and discipline, but the referees themselves exercised autonomous judgment in performing the core officiating function.
- PGMOL did not have the right of real-time intervention; the on-field decisions made by the referees were final.
- Disciplinary action for the misapplication of the rules lies with the FA as the regulator and not PGMOL.
- Weight was attached to the fact that assessment and coaching systems influenced future opportunities; however, their operation was predominantly prospective and developmental, shaping advancement for the referees.
- Although sufficient control was exercised by PGMOL, it was regulatory, developmental and gatekeeping in character rather than being of a supervisory nature.
- Integration
- There was no dispute that the referees were operationally embedded within PGMOL's arrangements; however, this is not equivalent to organisational integration.
- They derived their accreditation as a referee from the FA as a regulator and not PGMOL.
- PGMOL's role was administrative. The referees did not participate in PGMOL's governance, management or commercial activities.
- Economic reality
- The referees generally accepted the offers of matches on a secondary basis, alongside their full-time work. It did not provide their livelihood, meaning referees remained economically anchored elsewhere.
- No salary or retainer was offered, with payment confined to matches.
- Referees were free to disengage without risking their own economic position.
- The subsidiary factors
- The commitment and regularity of the work did not assist HMRC, as the basis was voluntary rather than obligatory.
- The provision of equipment was neutral.
- Length and continuity of the relationship reflected a merit-based progression, not employment tenure.
- Mutuality of obligation
- With all factors taken cumulatively, there was no defining hallmark of employment. Standing back from the individual factors, this was "not a finely balanced case".
HMRC's appeal was dismissed.
Useful guides on this topic
Employment Status: mutuality of obligation
What is mutuality of obligation? Why is mutuality of obligation not considered by HMRC's Check Employment Status for Tax tool?
Employment status & detailed checklist
Why is it important to check my employment status? What tests should I use? What is the recent case law?
HMRC employment status tool
HMRC's CEST 'Check Employment Status for Tax'. This tool can be used by workers, agencies and engagers in order to determine whether a worker is employed or self-employed for tax purposes.
Recovery of PAYE: Regulation 80 and 72 assessments for PAYE
When can HMRC assess an employer or an employee for unpaid Pay-As-You-Earn (PAYE) and National Insurance Contributions (NICs)? What is a regulation 80 determination? What is a regulation 72 determination? Who is assessed and what are the conditions?
External link
Professional Game Match Officials Limited v HMRC [2026] TC09870