HMRC Sent Off in £584k Football Referees Tax Battle

In one of the most closely watched employment status and PAYE disputes in recent memory, the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) has determined that National Group football referees engaged by Professional Game Match Officials Limited (“PGMOL”) were not employees for the purposes of income tax and National Insurance contributions. The Tribunal allowed PGMOL’s appeals against HMRC’s Regulation 80 determinations and associated NICs decisions, covering tax years 2014/15 and 2015/16, with a total of £583,874.07 in dispute.

The judgment, handed down on 1 May 2026 by Tribunal Judge Geraint Williams and Dr Phebe Mann, brings to a close a legal journey spanning two decades of litigation and four courts, from the First-tier Tribunal in 2018, through the Upper Tribunal, the Court of Appeal and, most significantly, the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in PGMOL v HMRC [2024] UKSC 29. This final decision on remission applies the multifactorial framework of Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance [1968] 2 QB 497 (“RMC”) and provides important guidance for any business or individual facing an HMRC employment status investigation.

Background: The Long Road to the First-Tier Tribunal

PGMOL is the body responsible for appointing and managing professional match officials, referees and assistant referees, across English professional football. In 2018, the original FTT found that whilst the referees did contract with PGMOL, the individual match engagements were not contracts of employment due to insufficient mutuality of obligation and insufficient control. HMRC appealed, triggering a protracted sequence of appellate proceedings.

The Upper Tribunal in 2020 upheld the conclusion on mutuality but found error in the approach to control. The Court of Appeal in 2021 held there had been legal errors on both limbs and remitted the matter. PGMOL appealed to the Supreme Court, which handed down its judgment in September 2024, confirming that the irreducible minimum of both mutuality of obligation and a sufficient framework of control was satisfied in respect of each individual match engagement. The Supreme Court then remitted the appeal back to the FTT for a fresh determination of the third stage of the RMC test: whether, given that mutuality and control were established, the individual match engagements were properly characterised as contracts of employment or contracts for services.

That is the question the 2026 FTT decision answers, and it answers it decisively in PGMOL’s favour.

The Legal Framework: What Is the RMC Three-Stage Test?

The legal touchstone for employment status in the United Kingdom remains the three-stage framework from Ready Mixed Concrete v Minister of Pensions [1968] 2 QB 497, as endorsed and refined by successive appellate courts. The three conditions are:

• Stage 1 — Personal Service: The worker agrees to provide their own work and skill in exchange for remuneration.
• Stage 2 — Control: The worker is subject to the other party’s control in a sufficient degree to make that party the master.
• Stage 3 — Consistency: The other provisions of the contract are consistent with a contract of employment.

In PGMOL, Stages 1 and 2 were resolved by the Supreme Court in HMRC’s favour. What remained for this Tribunal was Stage 3: a multifactorial evaluative exercise requiring a qualitative assessment of all the relevant terms and circumstances of each individual match engagement, without any presumption that mutuality and control, once found, are determinative of employment.

As the Court of Appeal made clear in HMRC v Atholl House Productions Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 501, the other major employment status authority of recent years, Stage 3 is not a negative test, and there is no prima facie conclusion of employment simply because the first two conditions are met. The court or tribunal must stand back and form an overall judgment from the accumulation of all relevant factors.

What Did the Tribunal Find?

The Tribunal conducted a structured analysis of the factual matrix found by the original FTT in 2018, factual findings which, crucially, could not be reopened. The judgment methodically evaluated each of the following factors in turn.

Mutuality of Obligation

The Tribunal accepted, as it was bound to, that the minimal work/wage bargain within each individual match engagement satisfied the irreducible minimum of mutuality. However, it found the quality and character of those obligations to be “narrow, short-lived and suffused with choice.” Outside any accepted engagement, neither party was under any obligation: PGMOL had no duty to offer appointments; referees had no duty to accept or attend. Crucially, a referee could withdraw from an accepted appointment, even after confirmation, up to the point of arrival at the ground, without breach or sanction. PGMOL would simply appoint a replacement. The Tribunal gave this feature significant weight: it is wholly inconsistent with employment, in which withdrawal from an agreed shift would attract contractual or disciplinary consequences.

Control

The Tribunal gave full effect to the Supreme Court’s finding that the assessment, coaching and disciplinary systems constituted significant levers of control. It did not dismiss them. However, it examined the nature and reach of that control carefully. On the field, referees had complete autonomy: their decisions were final, the Laws of the Game were applied without real-time intervention by PGMOL, and disciplinary authority for officiating errors rested exclusively with the Football Association as regulator. Many of the obligations relied upon by HMRC derived from the FA’s regulatory framework, not from PGMOL’s discretionary exercise of employer authority. The control that existed was predominantly prospective and gatekeeping — affecting future eligibility and progression — rather than supervisory of the core task during performance. The Tribunal concluded that control was “regulatory, facilitative and developmental rather than managerial and supervisory” and did not place the referees in a position of subordination characteristic of employment.

Integration

Whilst referees were operationally embedded in PGMOL’s systems, attending conferences, wearing PGMOL-supplied kit, participating in coaching and assessment programmes, the Tribunal drew a critical distinction between operational involvement and organisational integration. Referees derived their professional authority, status and accreditation from the FA, not from PGMOL. They did not participate in PGMOL’s governance or commercial operations. PGMOL’s role was administrative and coordinative. The contrast with Select Group referees, who were full-time PGMOL employees subject to materially different obligations of availability and commitment, illustrated what genuine integration looked like. National Group referees did not meet that standard.

Economic Reality

Refereeing at National Group level was, as the original FTT found, a “hobby, albeit a very serious one”, pursued alongside full-time employment. It did not “pay the bills.” There was no salary, no retainer, and no payment between engagements. Referees received fixed match fees at centrally determined rates and bore no financial risk from individual engagements. Whilst those features can point towards employment in isolation, the Tribunal placed decisive weight on the absence of economic dependency. The referees’ livelihoods did not depend on PGMOL. They could decline work, close off availability, or withdraw without imperilling their financial position. Economic subordination, a defining hallmark of employment, was simply not present.

The Subsidiary Factors

The Tribunal examined time commitment, dependence on a single paymaster, provision of equipment, length and continuity of relationship, exclusivity and substitution. None of these altered the overall picture. Regularity of appointments reflected voluntary professional motivation, not obligation. Exclusivity arose from the regulatory structure of football, not contractual restriction. Equipment provision was explicable by the demands of elite refereeing. Length of service reflected merit-based progression within the FA pyramid, not employment tenure.

The Tribunal’s Conclusion: Contracts for Services

Standing back from the detailed analysis, the Tribunal found that this was not a finely balanced case. The cumulative picture was clear: the individual match engagements between PGMOL and National Group referees were contracts for services, not contracts of employment. The third stage of the RMC test was not satisfied, and the appeals were allowed.

In the Tribunal’s words:

“What emerges instead is the picture of skilled professionals participating voluntarily in a regulated framework, undertaking discrete engagements for remuneration while retaining substantial autonomy and independence.”

The Regulation 80 PAYE determinations and Class 1 NIC decisions were set aside in their entirety.

What Does PGMOL v HMRC Mean for Employment Status Disputes?

This judgment is significant for several reasons that extend well beyond football. It confirms and clarifies a number of important principles.

1. Mutuality and control are necessary but not sufficient. The Supreme Court’s definitive finding that both conditions were satisfied did not predetermine the outcome. Stage 3 is a genuinely open evaluative exercise, and the FTT was free to, and did conclude that employment was not established.
2. The nature and quality of control matters, not just its existence. Where control is regulatory, developmental or gatekeeping in character, rather than supervisory of the core task in real time, it carries less weight at Stage 3. This is a distinction with important practical consequences for engagers in regulated sectors.
3. Economic dependency remains central to the employment concept. Where a worker’s livelihood does not depend on the engagement and they retain genuine freedom to decline work without financial consequence, the economic reality indicator points away from employment, notwithstanding the absence of financial risk within each engagement.
4. Regulatory environments require careful analysis. Obligations imposed by a governing body or competition organiser — even where enforced by the engager — are not readily equated with employer control. This principle has broad application beyond sport, including in regulated professional and financial services contexts.
5. The comparison with employed counterparts is telling. The Tribunal attached significant weight to the difference between National Group and Select Group referees. Where an engager genuinely employs some workers on full terms and engages others on materially different conditions, that distinction will be scrutinised closely.

For businesses operating in sectors where engagement structures are complex, including sport, media, professional services, and the gig economy, this judgment reinforces the importance of carefully structuring arrangements and maintaining contemporaneous evidence that reflects the true nature of the relationship.

HMRC’s Enforcement Powers: PAYE Regulation 80 and NIC Determinations

HMRC’s determinations in this case were issued under Regulation 80 of the Income Tax (Pay As You Earn) Regulations 2003, which empowers HMRC to issue determinations of PAYE income tax where an employer is found to have failed to deduct and account for tax. Associated decisions were made under section 8 of the Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions) Act 1999 in relation to Class 1 NICs.

These are powerful tools. A Regulation 80 determination can be issued on estimated figures if returns are not made, and HMRC need not wait until self-assessment liabilities are quantified. Where HMRC successfully establishes employment, the liability falls on the engager, potentially with interest and penalties on top. This is why PAYE and NIC compliance disputes carry such significant commercial risk and why rigorous legal representation is essential from the outset.

Facing an HMRC Employment Status Investigation? LEXLAW Can Help.

Employment status disputes, whether under IR35, Regulation 80, or direct HMRC investigation, are among the most technically demanding areas of tax law. They require a deep understanding of the common law tests, the developing case law from the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal, and the practical realities of how engagements operate.

At LEXLAW Solicitors & Barristers, we act exclusively in contentious tax and litigation matters. Our specialist team of solicitors and barristers, including counsel with ex-HMRC experience, advises engagers, contractors and intermediaries at every stage, from initial HMRC enquiry through to Tax Tribunal appeal and, where necessary, proceedings in the Upper Tribunal and beyond.

We analyse the merits of your case from the outset in an initial video conference with specialist counsel, so that you understand your exposure and your options before committing to a course of action. We have a demonstrable track record of successfully challenging HMRC decisions across the full range of tax disputes, including PAYE determinations, employment status enquiries, NIC challenges and penalty appeals.

If you are facing an HMRC investigation into the employment status of individuals you engage, or if you have received a Regulation 80 determination or NIC decision, contact our team today. We operate from our specialist chambers at Middle Temple, London, the only solicitors’ firm in England to do so.

Call us on 020 7183 0529 (9am–6pm, Monday to Friday) or complete our online enquiry form and one of our tax litigators will respond directly.