PGMOL and the limits of employment status by checklist

The final outcome in the long-running Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL) litigation may prove to be one of the most significant employment status decisions of recent years. While much of the attention has focused on the headline result that football referees were ultimately found not to be employees for tax purposes, the more interesting question is why HMRC lost despite successfully establishing both mutuality of obligation and a framework of control.

The answer lies in a more nuanced understanding of employment status indicators and, perhaps more importantly, a reminder that employment status remains an exercise in judgement rather than a checklist exercise.

The background

PGMOL is responsible for supplying match officials for professional football in England, including Premier League and English Football League fixtures. The dispute concerned a group of part-time referees engaged on a match by match basis during the 2014/15 and 2015/16 tax years. HMRC argued that the referees should be treated as employees for tax purposes, with PAYE and National Insurance contributions arising on match fees.

The case was considered through multiple levels of the judicial system before reaching the Supreme Court in 2024. The Supreme Court found that two key components of the employment status test existed within the match appointments:

• Mutuality of obligation
• A sufficient framework of control

However, the Court deliberately stopped short of deciding whether the referees were employees. Instead, it returned the case to the First-tier Tribunal to undertake the full multi-factorial assessment required by the Ready Mixed Concrete approach.

In May 2026, the First-tier Tribunal concluded that the referees were not employees for tax purposes, and HMRC subsequently confirmed that it would not appeal the decision, bringing more than ten years of litigation to an end.

Control is not a single concept

One of the most useful aspects of the case is the light it sheds on the concept of control.

In employment status enquiries, substantial emphasis is often placed on identifying examples of control. The PGMOL decision demonstrates why that analysis can be incomplete. The existence of control is only the beginning of the analysis. The more important question is the nature and source of that control.

Governance control is not employment control

It is helpful to think about control in three categories:

1. Regulatory Control - Controls imposed by legislation, regulators or professional bodies.
2. Governance Control - Controls imposed by organisations to ensure quality, consistency, risk management and professional standards.
3. Employment Control - Controls arising because an employer has the right to direct how work is undertaken.

The third category is a stronger pointer towards employment as it will relate directly to the engager of the worker, rather than the profession or sector governing bodies setting standards or assessing quality.

Mutuality of obligation was not enough

The Supreme Court confirmed that mutual obligations existed during individual engagements. Once a referee accepted an appointment, the referee was obliged to officiate and PGMOL was obliged to pay for those services.

However, the existence of mutuality did not determine the outcome. The Tribunal noted that PGMOL was under no obligation to offer future matches and referees were under no obligation to accept them. Each engagement stood on its own and there was no continuing obligation between the parties outside individual appointments.

The case therefore highlights an important distinction between the existence of mutual obligations and the extent and character of those obligations.

What might this mean for HMRC?

In this case HMRC succeeded in persuading the Supreme Court that both mutuality of obligation and a framework of control existed within the referees' engagements. However, despite establishing those factors existed, HMRC failed to demonstrate that the overall relationship was one of employment and reinforces an important principle which is identifying a status indicator is not the same as proving employment.

For HMRC officers conducting status reviews, particularly in highly regulated sectors, PGMOL may encourage greater consideration of the source of control, whether controls arise from regulation, governance or managerial direction, the nature and duration of mutual obligations, and the wider commercial reality of the relationship.

What the impact could be for businesses

For businesses engaging consultants, contractors and other independent professionals, PGMOL provides an important reminder that employment status reviews should focus on the substance of the working relationship rather than individual contractual provisions or isolated indicators.

Where organisations operate structured onboarding processes, quality frameworks, performance monitoring arrangements or compliance procedures, care should be taken before assuming those features automatically point towards employment. Businesses should consider whether those requirements arise from governance, regulation or genuine managerial direction.

The decision also demonstrates the importance of documenting the commercial reality of a relationship. Factors such as project-based engagements, freedom to accept work, the absence of continuing obligations, and the degree of professional independence exercised by the individual may remain highly relevant when determining status.

For organisations navigating IR35, off-payroll working rules and wider employment status compliance, PGMOL reinforces the need for a balanced assessment that considers all relevant factors rather than relying on predetermined assumptions.

Looking beyond the checklist

Ultimately, the most important lesson from PGMOL is that employment status remains a holistic exercise. The decision does not diminish the importance of mutuality of obligation or control. Rather, it reminds us that both concepts require qualitative analysis.

For businesses engaging consultants, specialists and other highly skilled professionals, the decision is reassuring. It confirms that employment status continues to depend on the overall relationship between the parties rather than the mechanical application of individual indicators. That, perhaps, is the true legacy of PGMOL.

We’re here to help

Employment status remains one of the most complex and frequently challenged areas of tax and employment law.

Whether you engage contractors, consultants, freelance specialists or other contingent workers, regular reviews of your employment status arrangements can help identify potential tax, National Insurance and compliance risks before they become costly disputes.

Our Employment Tax specialists can help you:

• Review existing employment status determinations and contractor arrangements.
• Assess IR35 and off-payroll working compliance.
• Identify areas where contractual terms and working practices may be misaligned.
• Navigate HMRC status enquiries and investigations.
• Implement practical processes to manage employment status risk across your workforce.

If you would like to discuss the implications of the PGMOL decision or review your current employment status arrangements, contact our Employment Tax team for tailored advice.