In May 2026, the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) brought long-running litigation in the Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL) v HMRC to a close, concluding that National Group football referees were self-employed rather than employees. The decision follows years of appeals and judicial scrutiny, including a pivotal ruling by the UK Supreme Court in 2024.
While earlier judgments clarified that even minimal mutuality of obligation and a framework of control can exist in such arrangements, the FTT’s task on remittal was to apply the full “multi-factorial” test derived from the Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance-[1968] 2QB497 case.
Its conclusion was clear: when viewed in the round, the relationship lacked the defining features of employment. The amount in dispute for the 2014/15 and 2015/16 tax years exceeded £583,000, excluding interest.
The legal issue
At the heart of the dispute was whether individual, match-by-match engagements constituted contracts of employment or contracts for services.
The FTT approached this by evaluating all relevant factors cumulatively – not any single factor above others – and considering the practical reality of the relationship between referees and PGMOL.
A long procedural history
The case has moved through multiple judicial stages:
- 2018 (FTT): Found insufficient mutuality and control for employment
- 2020 (Upper Tribunal): Upheld outcome but questioned control analysis
- 2021 (Court of Appeal): Found errors in both mutuality and control
- 2024 (Supreme Court): Confirmed minimum thresholds for mutuality and control were met, but not determinative
- 2026 (FTT on remittal): Applied full test and found referees self-employed
The Tribunal’s ’Big Picture’ approach
The judges emphasised this was not a case to be decided by ticking legal boxes. Although mutuality and control were present at a basic level, the outcome depended on their quality, context, and weight alongside all other factors.
Ad-hoc nature ofwork
Referees were engaged on a match-by-match basis, with no obligation to offer or accept future work. This lack of ongoing commitment strongly indicated self-employment.
Genuine autonomy
Although PGMOL operated a structured system of assessment and coaching, referees retained full authority during matches. There was no real-time supervision, and no right for PGMOL to direct how officiating decisions were made.
The FTT characterised this as regulatory rather than managerial control, falling short of the subordination typical in employment relationships.
Limited integration
Referees operated within PGMOL’s framework but were not embedded within its organisation. Many held full-time roles elsewhere, and their involvement reflected participation in a regulated profession rather than integration into a business.
A key contrast was drawn with ’Select Group’ referees – full-time employees – highlighting what true organisational integration looks like in practice.
Economic reality
The FTT also considered whether referees were economically dependent on PGMOL. They were not. Refereeing was a secondary activity, with no salary or retainer, and individuals could decline engagements without financial consequence. While referees bore little financial risk, they were also not reliant on officiating income for their livelihood.
This absence of economic dependency reinforced the conclusion that the relationship pointed away from employment.
Subsidiary factors
Additional considerations, including time commitment, exclusivity, provision of equipment, and personal service, were found to be neutral or reflective of the sport’s regulatory structure.
Taken individually or collectively, they did not alter the overall assessment.
Not a borderline case
Importantly, the FTT made clear that this was not a finely balanced decision. The cumulative evidence pointed decisively toward self-employment, making this one of the clearest modern applications of the employment status test.
What this means for businesses
The FTT provides valuable clarity for organisations engaging contractors:
- Mutuality and control are no longer decisive battlegrounds
- The real question is whether the individual operates as an independent professional
Key indicators include:
- Freedom to accept or decline work
- Lack of ongoing obligation
- Minimal integration into the business
- Autonomy in how work is performed
Where these factors are present, a self-employed status remains achievable, even where some control exists.
Key takeaway
The PGMOL decision confirms a fundamental principle: employment status is determined by the overall reality of the relationship, not by satisfying isolated legal tests.
For businesses, the message is clear: contractor arrangements can still sit outside IR35, but only where they are structured and operate in a way that reflects genuine independence.
Get clarity on your employment status risk
If you engage freelancers, contractors or specialists, this decision is a timely reminder to sense‑check how your arrangements operate in practice. Our Employment Taxes specialists can help you assess risk, strengthen your position and respond confidently to HMRC scrutiny.
