PGMOL v HMRC concerns the employment status of football referees operating in the National Group, officiating matches at the upper echelons of the game in the English Football League. The First-tier tax tribunal (FTT) heard the first case in 2018 (PGMOL v HMRC [2018] UKFTT 0528 (TC)). It has since been appealed to the Upper Tribunal (PGMOL v HMRC [2020] UKUT 147 (TCC)), Court of Appeal (PGMOL v HMRC [2021] EWCA Civ 1370) and Supreme Court (PGMOL v HMRC [2024] UKSC 29), after which it was remitted back to the FTT to apply the third stage of the test in RMC.

After a hearing in November 2025, the FTT has handed down its decision, allowing PGMOL’s appeal and finding that the referees were not employees of PGMOL.

In a thorough decision, the FTT took a structured approach, analysing all the factors (in both the overarching and individual contracts), viewed in the circumstances of the case, and found that the nature and extent of the mutual obligations, control, and the economic reality all pointed away from employment.

Mutuality of obligation

Material to the decision was that referees operated on a list from which there was no obligation to accept work (or be offered it) and that they could close dates freely, decline appointments for any reason, prioritise other employment or personal commitments without criticism or sanction and withdraw from an appointment even once offered (FTT ¶290). Whilst these features do not “negate the existence of mutuality once an engagement was accepted”, they do “fundamentally inform its quality” (FTT ¶291). That referees, as a matter of fact, regularly were offered and regularly accepted matches did not alter that conclusion: this arose from voluntary decision-making from referees who were committed, not owing to any obligation of the kind associated with employ employment (FTT ¶292).

Control

Noting that control was both a necessary condition to a contract of employment and that the Supreme Court had conclusively determined that a sufficient framework of control existed, the FTT nonetheless noted that its existence alone does not determine the character of the relationship (FTT ¶294), before finding that the “control exercised by PGMOL, though sufficient to meet the irreducible minimum, was regulatory, developmental and gatekeeping in character rather than managerial and supervisory” (FTT ¶299).

Integration

Whilst referees were “operationally embedded within PGMOL’s arrangements” (FTT ¶301), PGMOL’s role was “administrative and coordinative”; referees were not embedded into the organisation or subjected to management or deployed to organisational roles beyond officiating (FTT ¶303).

Economic reality

The FTT found that the question of economic reality is not a standalone test but a relevant indicator as to whether an individual is “economically subordinate to the putative employer” (FTT ¶306). The referees bore little financial risk (match fees were fixed and major expenses were paid) and had little opportunity to profit from the sound management of their tasks. However, whilst this may point towards employment in certain cases, this is context dependent (FTT ¶308). In this case, referees were not economically subordinate as they were refereeing in their spare time as keen hobbyists: they were not financially dependent on refereeing and remained “financially anchored” elsewhere (FTT ¶308). Assessed in this context, the economic reality of the relationship pointed away from employment.

Subsidiary factors

Finally, the remaining factors (including the provision of equipment) did not alter that assessment when viewed cumulatively (FTT ¶311). That referees were dependent on PGMOL as their sole paymaster was not determinative in this case: it reflected the regulatory structure of the game, in which PGMOL was the organisation responsible for the organisation and match-appointment of referees at this level (and above), the other levels falling within the purview of the Football Association. Some referees had a long refereeing career, spending many years engaged by PGMOL, but, again, this was not a pointer towards employment in circumstances where they had to be assigned to the list each season, based purely on merit (FTT ¶312).

Overall, the FTT found that the relationship lacked the “defining hallmarks of employment: ongoing mutual commitment, subordination in performance of the central task, organisational integration into the engager’s undertaking, and economic dependency” (FTT ¶316). What emerged instead was a picture of skilled professionals operating voluntarily in a regulated framework, undertaking discrete tasks for pay, whilst retaining substantial autonomy and independence (FTT ¶316).

Impact of decision

The decision will be of particular significance to any cases where engagers use lists or panels to manage resources, albeit it emphasises the fact-rich nature of the enquiry and the significance of the commercial context. It will also be of more general importance to anyone looking to see how tribunals apply the third stage of the RMC test, in light of the guidance from the Court of Appeal in HMRC v Atholl House Productions Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 501 and the Supreme Court in PGMOL v HMRC [2024] UKSC 29.

Georgia Hicks was instructed by PGMOL (led by Jonathan Peacock KC).

Akash Nawbatt KC and Sebastian Purnell were instructed by HMRC.

The decision can be read in full here.