HMRC v Professional Game Match Officials Ltd (PGMOL) reached the Supreme Court in 2024 after a long-running dispute over the tax status of part-time football referees.
The referees worked in PGMOL’s National Group, officiating primarily in League One and League Two. They were engaged on a match-by-match basis and were treated as self-employed. HMRC argued that the individual match appointments were contracts of employment.
The Supreme Court found that sufficient mutuality of obligation and a sufficient framework of control existed once a referee accepted a match. It did not decide that the referees were employees.
The remaining question was sent back to the First-tier Tribunal. In May 2026, the FTT found that the individual match engagements were contracts for services.
The National Group referees
PGMOL provides match officials for professional football in England. The dispute concerned its National Group referees during the 2014/15 and 2015/16 tax years.
Unlike officials in the Select Group, who were already treated as employees, National Group referees generally had other occupations. Refereeing was carried out alongside their main employment or business activities.
PGMOL offered individual match appointments and referees could accept or decline them. An accepted appointment could also be withdrawn before the match.
HMRC argued that PAYE and National Insurance should have been operated on the match fees.
From the FTT to the Supreme Court
PGMOL initially succeeded before the First-tier Tribunal in 2019. HMRC appealed to the Upper Tribunal and then to the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal found that the earlier tribunals had taken the wrong approach to mutuality of obligation and control. PGMOL appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court gave judgment in September 2024 in HMRC v Professional Game Match Officials Ltd [2024] UKSC 29.
Mutuality during an individual match engagement
The fact that PGMOL did not have to offer a referee another match, and the referee did not have to accept one, did not prevent mutual obligations arising during an accepted appointment.
Once a referee accepted a match, there were obligations on both sides. The referee agreed to officiate and PGMOL agreed to pay the match fee.
The ability of either side to cancel the appointment before the match did not prevent those obligations from satisfying the necessary mutuality of obligation for a contract of employment.
The Supreme Court’s finding was limited to the individual engagements. There did not need to be an obligation on PGMOL to offer further matches, or on the referee to accept them.
PGMOL had a framework of control
The Supreme Court also found that PGMOL had a sufficient framework of control over the referees.
PGMOL could not tell a referee which decisions to make during a match. The referee’s authority on the pitch was inherent in the job.
Its control operated in other ways. Referees were subject to PGMOL’s instructions and codes of conduct, their performances were assessed and they were expected to follow PGMOL’s requirements before and after matches.
That provided a sufficient framework of control for the second stage of the employment status test.
The Supreme Court did not find employment
Mutuality and control took the individual match contracts through the first two stages of the Ready Mixed Concrete test.
There was still a third stage to complete.
The remaining terms and circumstances of the engagements had to be considered to decide whether the contracts were consistent with employment. The Supreme Court therefore sent the case back to the First-tier Tribunal.
The case returns to the FTT
The remitted First-tier Tribunal gave its decision on 1 May 2026 in PGMOL v HMRC [2026] UKFTT 654 (TC).
It applied the Supreme Court’s findings on mutuality and control and considered the remaining features of the National Group arrangements.
The referees could decline appointments and there was no continuing obligation to offer or accept matches. They generally had full-time occupations away from refereeing and were not economically dependent on PGMOL.
The tribunal also considered the nature of PGMOL’s control. Its assessment, coaching and development arrangements were relevant, but the quality of that control had to be considered alongside the other terms of the relationship at the third stage.
The referees were not integrated into PGMOL in the manner of employees.
The referees were self-employed
The FTT concluded that the individual match contracts were contracts for services rather than contracts of employment.
The match fees were therefore not employment income for PAYE and National Insurance purposes.
HMRC subsequently confirmed that it would not appeal the 2026 decision.
The litigation had therefore produced an unusual result. HMRC won its argument in the Supreme Court that mutuality and sufficient control existed during the match engagements, but PGMOL ultimately won when the remaining terms were considered by the FTT.
PGMOL and IR35
PGMOL concerned self-employed referees rather than workers supplying their services through personal service companies. Its treatment of mutuality and control nevertheless applies to the common-law employment status test used in IR35 cases.
Its clearest effect is on arguments about gaps between engagements. A contractor does not defeat mutuality simply by showing that the client has no obligation to offer another piece of work after the current engagement ends.
PGMOL also confirms that sufficient control can exist without close supervision of the worker’s day-to-day decisions. The question is whether the engager has a sufficient contractual framework of control.
The 2026 FTT decision then shows what happened when those findings were carried into the third limb of Ready Mixed Concrete. On the National Group arrangements, the remaining terms pointed to contracts for services.
See our guides to mutuality of obligation, control and the main IR35 status tests.
Judgments
The Supreme Court decided the mutuality and control issues in September 2024:
HMRC v Professional Game Match Officials Ltd [2024] UKSC 29.
The remitted First-tier Tribunal decided the remaining employment status question on 1 May 2026:
PGMOL v HMRC [2026] UKFTT 654 (TC).
You can also read our news report on the final PGMOL decision.