FTT rules that football referees aren’t employees — key takeaways from PGMOL

A long‑running dispute over the tax status of football referees has taken another turn, with the First-tier (Tax) Tribunal (FTT) finding that match fees paid by Professional Game Match Officials Ltd (PGMOL) — the body that appoints and manages referees across English professional football — weren’t employment earnings for income tax or Class 1 National Insurance purposes.

Here, tax compliance and disputes expert Helen Pearson explores how the FTT reached its decision and outlines the key takeaways for businesses navigating employment status issues.

Kick-off: The background

PGMOL engages referees in the National Group to officiate matches for the EFL (English Football League) and the FA Cup, with those referees providing their services on a self-employed basis.

Each match is covered by a separate contract between PGMOL and the referee. Once a referee accepts an appointment, they submit a match report afterwards and receive a match fee in return. National Group referees can refuse an assignment or cancel an agreed commitment without sanction, although in practice they’re required to give a reason. 

Half-time: Ruling of the Supreme Court

In 2024, the Supreme Court held that the two employment tests of 'mutuality of obligation' and 'control' were met and remitted the decision back to the FTT to consider the final test from Ready Mixed Concrete [1968] 2 QB 497 (RMC).

This final stage of the assessment is a holistic test that looks broadly at all the relevant terms and circumstances to determine the true nature of the relationship.

The decision of the FTT in this case was bound by the findings from the Supreme Court, namely that:

1. there was 'mutuality of obligation' between PGMOL and the referees
2. PGMOL exercised 'control' over the referees in the performance of the engagement.
    

However, the FTT’s task was to conclude on the overall position of whether the match fees were employment earnings in light of all the relevant factors and surrounding circumstances. 

That’s the whistle: Conclusions of the FTT

Ultimately, the FTT concluded that the individual match appointments weren’t ‘contracts of employment’ and the match fees paid to the referees didn’t constitute employment earnings. 

The FTT's conclusion was fact-specific and took into account a range of factors, including:

• The mutual obligations for each contract are "narrow, episodic and contingent".
• The regulator (not PGMOL) polices the performance of the referees and handles disciplinary action.
• The applicable obligations are set by the regulator and merely passed on by PGMOL.
• PGMOL exercised a “significant framework of control” but the nature of control was regulatory, facilitative and developmental, as opposed to more managerial and supervisory control.
• Referees were operationally involved with PGMOL but not integrated into its organisation as employees.
• Refereeing is typically a serious hobby with a “side income” that “did not pay the bills”.
• There was a general expectation — held by both PGMOL and the referees — that a number of appointments would be offered and accepted regularly throughout the season.
• The provision of equipment may not be indicative of employment.

While the FTT held that none of these factors were determinative in their own right, when taken together, the overall conclusion was that the referees didn’t satisfy the employment status tests in RMC. 

Extra time: Further appeals

While the FTT’s conclusion was that the referees weren’t employees, it found that there were some factors that indicated an employment contract did exist, including the match day procedures, fitness obligations and other contractual requirements. It’s possible that HMRC may appeal against the FTT’s decision further on specific points or on the basis that additional weight should’ve been placed on these factors that leant in HMRC’s favour. HMRC have until the end of June to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Tax Chamber). 

Key takeaways

Where mutuality of obligation and control can be established, this isn’t always determinative of the employment status of the workers and a multi-factorial approach should be considered. It’s therefore key to consider the wider terms and conditions when engaging self-employed individuals to ensure that the employment status and corresponding tax implications are correctly treated. 

This case serves as a stark reminder that failure to properly assess the employment status of workers can have significant consequences when reporting and remitting tax to HMRC. If HMRC challenge any position adopted, it can result in years of litigation before the tax tribunals and courts. With HMRC compliance activity expected to increase, proactive management of these risks can prevent escalation action.

Talk to us  

If you need advice around the employment status of your workforce or you’re facing a challenge from HMRC, our employment law, tax disputes and sports sector experts are available to assist. 

Talk to us by giving us a call on 0333 004 4488, sending us an email at hello@brabners.com or completing our contact form.