Background 

Initial decisions went in favour of PGMOL, with the FTT in 2018, and the Upper Tribunal in 2020, both finding for PGMOL and self-employment. However, PGMOL suffered set-backs at the Court of Appeal in 2021 and the Supreme Court in 2024. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal, finding that two hallmarks of employment – an irreducible minimum of mutuality of obligation and a sufficient framework of control – were present in the arrangements.  

However, although mutuality of obligation and control are necessary for an employment contract to exist, they do not guarantee that one does in fact  exist. Therefore, the Supreme Court remitted the case back to the FTT to determine whether, taking into account the full facts and circumstances, including that the requirements of mutuality of obligations and control were met, the contracts were contracts of employment.  

Referees were self-employed 

In a judgement released on 1 May 2026, the FTT ruled in favour of PGMOL, finding that the contracts were contracts for services and not contracts of employment, and as a result that the referees were self-employed, not employees. In coming to this conclusion, the FTT found that there was no obligation on the referees to accept work or to be offered work by PGMOL – the referees could decline, reschedule or withdraw from matches without consequence. For most, the refereeing was a hobby on which they spent substantial personal time, but on which they were not financially dependent.   

Further, although PGMOL exercised a degree of control over the referees in establishing processes, monitoring procedures and providing training, this was a result of the regulatory nature and requirements of the environment in which the role was performed. PGMOL enforced the Football Association’s rules rather than acting in a managerial or supervisory capacity. While the referees were integrated into PGMOL’s systems and processes in order to operate and carry out their officiating, this integration did not extend further than this role, which they could opt in and out of. 

HMRC is considering its position and may seek permission to appeal. However, this seems unlikely and it would appear that the FTT’s decision has brought the long-running saga to a close.    

ICAEW’s view 

Adelle Greenwood, Tax Technical Manager, ICAEW, said: “the length of time that it took to bring this case to a resolution highlights the complexity and level of detail required to make an informed employment status decision in the UK. It is particularly interesting to note that PGMOL had another group of referees which they acknowledged to be employees due to different facts and circumstances. Even where there is clearly a genuine attempt to interpret and apply the law correctly, there are significant risks of HMRC disagreeing with the business’s view.” 

“This was an employment status case for tax purposes, yet UK employment law legislation is equally complicated. When it comes to status for employment law there are not only the two categories of employed and self-employed but a further third category of ‘worker’. Different rights apply to each category and it is possible to be self-employed for tax purposes and employed for employment law purposes or vice versa.” 

The government has committed to launching a full consultation on employment law status and on possibly moving to a single status of worker as part of the Make Work Pay plan. This was initially expected before the end of 2025 but has yet to be delivered. In a recent article, ICAEW called on the government to simplify the tax system, including by tackling issues around employment status.