Full-time whistle blown in football referees employment status case

In Professional Game Match Officials Ltd v HMRC [2026] UKFTT 654 (TC), the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) allowed the taxpayer's appeal and held that football referees' individual match engagements were contracts for their services and not contracts of employment and therefore the referees were self-employed.

Background

The taxpayer challenged determinations issued by HMRC under regulation 80 of the Income Tax (Pay As You Earn) Regulations 2003, and associated decisions under section 8 of the Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions) Act 1998, in relation to tax years 2014/15 and 2015/16. 

The determinations and decisions were issued on the basis that Professional Game Match Officials Ltd (PGMOL) was the employer of Level 1 National Group (NG) football referees, and therefore match fees paid to those referees constituted earnings from employment for the purposes of income tax and Class 1 National Insurance contributions.

PGMOL was successful in the FTT and the Upper Tribunal, but HMRC's appeal was allowed in the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court dismissed PGMOL's appeal and remitted the case back to the FTT for determination, in light of the guidance it provided in its judgment. 

The FTT was to determine whether the individual match engagements were contracts of employment on the basis that mutuality of obligation and control had been established. The Supreme Court directed the FTT to adopt the findings of fact in the original FTT decision and to apply the multifactorial approach set out in Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance [1968] 2 QB 497 (RMC).

The Supreme Court determined that the first two stages of the RMC test, mutuality of obligation and control, had been satisfied in respect of the individual match contracts. What remained for the FTT to determine was whether, considering all the relevant factors, the individual match engagements should be properly characterised as contracts of employment or contracts for services. 

FTT decision

The appeal was allowed.

In considering mutuality of obligation, the FTT noted that PGMOL was not required to offer match appointments during a season, and referees were not required to accept appointments when offered to them. Referees could withdraw from an appointment after accepting it, up to the point of arrival at the ground, without being in breach of contract or subject to disciplinary action. That was considered by the FTT to be "fundamentally inconsistent" with employment.

In considering control, the FTT observed that the referees retained complete autonomy in performing the core officiating function. PGMOL had no right to intervene or direct how officiating judgements were to be made on the field. Additionally, disciplinary processes for misapplication of the Laws of the Game rested with the Football Association (FA), not PGMOL. The control was regulatory, developmental and gatekeeping in character, rather than managerial and supervisory. 

The FTT also considered integration as an indicator of whether an individual is properly regarded as part of the engager's undertaking. The NG referees were undoubtedly operationally embedded in PGMOL's arrangements, but they derived their professional authority, accreditation and status from the FA, as the regulator, not PGMOL. 

Moreover, in considering economic reality, the FTT found that the NG referees undertook the work alongside full-time employment and did not receive a salary or retainer, but rather were paid for each match they officiated. 

Considering the factors together, the FTT found that the relationship lacked the key hallmarks of a relationship of employment. It concluded that the NG referees were skilled professionals, participating voluntarily in a regulated framework and undertaking discrete engagements for remuneration, whilst retaining autonomy and independence. 

The FTT therefore allowed PGMOL's appeal and concluded that the individual match engagements between PGMOL and the NG referees were contracts for services and not contracts of employment.

Comment

The FTT's decision demonstrates that, in applying RMC, even where mutuality of obligation and control can be determined prima facie, the FTT must still consider whether the terms of the contract and nature of the relationship are consistent with a relationship of employment overall. This is likely to involve a detailed analysis of a range of factors, which will include mutuality of obligation and control, but which is likely to also include other factors such as integration, economic reality, financial risk, time commitment, dependence on a single paymaster, provision of equipment, length and continuity of relationship, exclusivity and substitution. 

Employment status cases remain highly fact-specific and the FTT will adopt a holistic, multifactorial analysis, in determining the employment status of workers. 

It is understood that HMRC do not intend to appeal the FTT's decision.

Read Professional Game Match Officials Ltd v HMRC.