Football referees held not to be employees despite Supreme Court findings on mutuality and control

Background

In the case of Professional Game Match Officials Ltd v HMRC, HMRC argued that football referees engaged by Professional Game Match Officials Ltd (PGMOL) should be treated as employees for PAYE and Class 1 National Insurance contribution purposes.

The litigation has been ongoing for several years and has already passed through the Upper Tribunal, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. Earlier stages of the case focused on whether the individual match appointments involved sufficient obligation and control for the relationship potentially to amount to employment.

In 2024, the Supreme Court concluded that those minimum requirements were satisfied and remitted the case back to the First-tier Tribunal to determine the remaining issue: whether, looking at the overall relationship in the round, the referees were employees or genuinely self-employed officials engaged on a match-by-match basis. For more information on the Supreme Court judgment, click here.

The Tribunal therefore had to carry out the wider employment status assessment used by the courts. In practice, this involved considering a range of factors including the degree of control exercised by PGMOL, whether referees were genuinely free to accept or reject work, how integrated they were within the organisation, the level of economic dependency, and whether the overall reality resembled employment or independent engagement.

Tribunal decision

The Tribunal concluded that the referees were not employees and that the individual match appointments were contracts for services.

Although referees agreed to officiate matches in return for payment, the Tribunal considered that the wider relationship remained highly flexible. Referees were under no obligation to accept appointments and could close off dates of unavailability freely. Importantly, the Tribunal found that referees could even withdraw from accepted appointments without contractual or disciplinary sanction.

The Tribunal placed significant weight on the finding that refereeing was generally undertaken alongside full-time employment and did not provide the referees’ livelihoods. Refereeing was described as a “serious hobby”, pursued for enjoyment, professional pride and progression within the refereeing structure rather than economic dependence on PGMOL.

The case is particularly notable for its analysis of control. PGMOL operated a detailed framework covering match-day procedures, fitness testing, coaching, assessments, merit tables and disciplinary arrangements. Referees were continually assessed and their future appointments and progression opportunities were affected by performance.

However, the Tribunal concluded that much of this framework was regulatory and developmental in nature rather than managerial in the employment sense. It attached particular significance to the fact that referees retained complete autonomy over the application of the rules of the game during matches. PGMOL could not intervene in real time or direct how officiating decisions were made on the pitch.

The Tribunal also distinguished between integration into a regulatory framework and integration into an employer’s organisation. Although referees operated within PGMOL’s systems and attended its training and assessment programmes, their professional identity derived principally from the Football Association’s wider refereeing structure rather than from PGMOL itself.

The Tribunal accepted that some factors pointed towards employment, including the structured control framework and the absence of significant financial risk. However, standing back and considering the overall picture, it concluded that the relationship lacked the defining hallmarks of employment, including ongoing mutual commitment, managerial subordination and economic dependency.

Learning points for employers

This decision highlights that employment status disputes are highly fact-sensitive, with no single factor being decisive. Even significant control and oversight may not establish employment status if the overall relationship suggests independence. The decision clarifies the distinction between regulatory oversight and employment-style managerial control, offering useful reasoning for organisations in regulated sectors where compliance arises from professional or regulatory requirements rather than direct supervision.

It also emphasises the importance of practical indicators such as the ability to decline work, freedom to withdraw, lack of guaranteed income, and economic independence in the determination of employment status. Employers using flexible or assignment-based arrangements should ensure that contractual documentation and day-to-day working practices accurately reflect the intended nature of the relationship, as tribunals will ultimately focus on the practical reality rather than labels alone.

---

For more information or advice, please get in touch with Ella Straker in our Employment team.