After more than ten years of legal proceedings, the First-tier Tribunal has today ruled that National Group football referees are not employees for tax purposes.
The decision brings this phase of the long-running PGMOL employment status case to a close, although HMRC has until mid-June 2026 to decide whether to appeal.
While not an IR35 case, the decision is highly relevant to IR35 status assessments.
Handed down on 1 May 2026, the ruling follows the Supreme Court’s 2024 judgment in HMRC v PGMOL, which confirmed that mutuality of obligation and control were present in the referees’ match-by-match engagements.
Summary of the case: In its decision, the tribunal found that the referees were not employees. The judgment confirms that no single factor, such as mutuality of obligation or control, is decisive on its own. Tribunals must instead look at the overall picture of the working relationship to determine employment status.
The FTT decision
In its decision (PGMOL v HMRC [2026] UKFTT 654 (TC)), the First-tier Tribunal found that the referees’ individual match engagements did not amount to contracts of employment.
This was despite the Supreme Court having already confirmed that:
- mutuality of obligation existed during each engagement
- a sufficient framework of control was in place
The tribunal instead focused on the overall nature of the relationship.
The key factors included:
- the referees were free to decline match appointments
- they could withdraw from appointments without being penalised
- there was no obligation to offer or accept work between matches
- the refereeing was carried out alongside full-time employment
The tribunal found that, when taken together, the engagements were discrete, short-term arrangements. They didn’t form part of an ongoing employment relationship.
Why HMRC still lost
The FTT’s decision may seem surprising given the earlier Supreme Court ruling.
In HMRC v PGMOL [2024] UKSC 29, the court held that both mutuality of obligation and control were clearly present in the individual contracts.
That decision was widely seen as strengthening HMRC’s position in employment status cases.
But crucially, the Supreme Court did not decide the ultimate question of status. Instead, it sent the case back to the tribunal to apply the full, multi-factorial test derived from the Ready Mixed Concrete case.
HMRC won the legal argument at the Supreme Court, but lost the case on the facts.
What this means for IR35
For contractors and advisers, this decision serves as a timely and practical reminder of how the employment status tests work in reality.
The Supreme Court confirmed that mutuality of obligation can exist even within a single, discrete engagement – there doesn’t need to be a long-term obligation to offer or accept work.
It also made clear that control doesn’t automatically mean the worker is under their client’s day-to-day supervision. Control can also be exercised via rules and overall oversight.
However, the Tribunal’s ruling underlines an important point: these individual factors are not decisive on their own. They must be weighed as part of the bigger picture of the working relationship.
In particular:
- mutuality of obligation and control should not be viewed in isolation
- the absence of ongoing commitment between engagements remains relevant
- the overall context, including whether the individual is operating in business on their own account, can carry significant weight
This reflects the long-established approach set out in cases such as Hall v Lorimer, where tribunals are required to stand back and assess the whole relationship.
Further concern over the government’s CEST tool
The ruling is bound to raise further concerns over the accuracy of results generated by CEST, HMRC’s employment status tool.
Seb Maley, CEO of Qdos, commented:
This landmark verdict directly challenges HMRC’s very understanding of employment status – exposing a fundamental flaw in the tax office’s employment status tool, which is in desperate need of an overhaul.
For years, HMRC has insisted that mutuality of obligation exists in every contract – so much so that its Check Employment Status for Tax (CEST) tool barely scratches the surface on it.
The latest twist in this case highlights the need for a rigorous review of CEST, which has been used millions of times to set the employment status of individuals, in turn determining whether they pay tax as a self-employed worker or employee.
A reminder on how status is decided
The PGMOL case ultimately reinforces a key theme that runs through modern IR35 case law: even when ‘holy trinity’ status indicators such as mutuality of obligation and control are clearly present, this doesn’t necessarily mean that an individual is an employee.
Instead, tribunals must consider all relevant factors together, applying the “in the round” approach described in IR35 status tests.
That is what the First-tier Tribunal has now done here – reaching the same conclusion as in the original 2018 decision, but on a corrected legal basis.
What happens next
The First-tier Tribunal decision brings this phase of the dispute to a close, although HMRC may decide to appeal.
We asked IR35 and employment status expert Rebecca Seeley Harris of Re:Legal Consulting what could happen next.
The PGMOL FTT judgment has at last considered some previously points that have not been argued.
No mutuality between assignment matters, no presumption of employment matters, and regulatory control is not the same as employer control. All these questions have now been answered.
It remains to be seen whether HMRC will appeal. It’s a risky game because, at present, this doesn’t set a precedent. If they lose, it will.