Relegated for reconsideration PGMOL v HMRC: Key takeaways

The long-awaited decision of Professional Game Match Officials Ltd v HMRC (“PGMOL”) was issued by the First-tier tax Tribunal (“FTT”) in May 2026, after an almost 8-year journey through the appellate courts.  This followed the Supreme Court’s remittance of the case back to the FTT to allow the Tribunal to apply a “multifactorial evaluation” to determine whether the referees in question were engaged by PGMOL under a contract of employment or contract for services. The outcome provides some further clarity on the scope of the tests set out in Ready Mixed Concrete (“RMC”), particularly the degree of control imposed upon referees and what this means in practice.

Mutuality of obligation
 

The parties debated between whether the referees being offered regular work sessions (and accepting work for an entire season of football, for example) would amount to mutuality of obligation (i.e. a duty to provide work to an individual alongside an obligation to accept that work, which likens the arrangement to one of employment). HMRC emphasised the degree of regularity in the referees’ engagement, as the nature of the role required fixtures and a practical expectation of frequent engagements. HMRC claimed this also amounted to a predictable pattern of work, however, PGMOL clarified that most referees considered the role as a “serious hobby” enjoyed alongside a full-time career which they were motivated to engage in frequently (for the sake of performance and progression). Importantly, this motivation was driven by ambition, rather than obligation. It was acknowledged that, even after accepting an appointment, the referees retained an unconditional right to withdraw without sanction; something that was wholly inconsistent with employment.

Degree of control
 

A key area that was a point of contention at all levels of the appeal was the degree of control and the question of whether contractual obligations governing the conduct of a referee on and around match day amounted to exercising a degree of control, indicating a contract of employment. The Tribunal was required to consider a referee’s autonomy when performing the core function of their role; officiating a match. It was agreed that this type of role would naturally be governed by the rules of an association and subject to a degree of regulation, so it was necessary to assess the managerial structures within PGMOL and day-to-day control when looking at the complete picture.

The Supreme Court acknowledged that the referees’ on-field independence and control did not need to be all encompassing to satisfy the RMC test. In doing so, it was also necessary to compare how PGMOL referees operated in comparison to Select Group referees, who were described as “owned” by PGMOL (and in contrast, required to attend meetings, training, make themselves fully available). The conclusion on control was, ultimately, although PGMOL exercised a significant framework of control, the nature and purpose of the control mechanisms were regulatory, facilitative, and developmental rather than managerial and supervisory (as the purpose of fitness requirements, coaching assessment systems were directed towards safeguarding the integrity and quality of the regulated profession). Control did not extend to the heart of officiating.  It did not amount to subordination and therefore did not indicate that there was a contract of employment.

Other relevant factors
 

In reaching its conclusion, the Tribunal considered other factors including PGMOL’s inclusion within organisational arrangements and integration into the Football Association’s regulation of refereeing. On balance, it was held that the referees’ integration was instead into the refereeing framework, a sector-wide regulatory system, rather than PGMOL’s own undertaking, again emphasising the distinction between operational inclusion and organisational integration. Economic dependency and dependence on a single paymaster were also considered, HMRC placing weight on the fact that the referees relied in PGMOL for access to officiating, often having no alternative engager and, combined with restrictions on media activity and commercial associations, this dependence meant that the referees could not be in business on their own account. It was held however that the absence of alternative engagers was a reflection of regulatory structure of football refereeing, rather than any constraint imposed by PGMOL and this in itself did not amount to economic dependence.

Considering all the factors, the FTT concluded that the referees were operating under contracts for services performed within regulatory oversight, designed to preserve independence, integrity and high officiating standards, not contracts of employment.

Concluding thoughts
 

Whilst the PGMOL decision has provided some much-needed clarity and guidance on tests imposed by RMC and Atholl House, and how the degree of control should be considered, particularly in industries that will always be governed by regulations, the outcome is fact dependent at every stage.

For contractors that do not work in highly regulated sectors, the commentary around the framework of control will likely have a different application and the main takeaway of PGMOL is to take a step back and look at the picture as a whole. The subjective nature of RMC and the application of the tests is key, as for the referees in question, it was essential to look beyond contractual limitations and regulatory frameworks and focus on applying the tests to one’s day-to-day activities.

PGMOL makes clear that “the test must be understood as a flexible, multi-factorial evaluation, not a mechanistic limb-by-limb analysis”, which in turn may lead to very subjective and fact-specific applications of the test in future matters.

We understand that HMRC has confirmed that it will not appeal the decision. 

About the author

Tabassum specialises in tax disputes, investigations and risk management. She has experience in direct and indirect tax litigation, particularly with employment tax-related enquiries, including IR35 / off-payroll working rules and National Minimum Wage. Tabassum is experienced in resolving complex HMRC enquiries at an early stage, through mediation or negotiation, as well as supporting clients through the Tax Tribunals and the High Court. Tabassum is a qualified member of the Association of Tax Technicians (ATT).