The First-tier Tribunal decision in Professional Game Match Officials Ltd v HMRC (2026) has been a long time coming.
Eight years after the original ruling, the Tribunal has again concluded that football match referees engaged by PGMOL were self‑employed for tax purposes. HMRC’s appeal was unsuccessful, and the outcome was reached on essentially the same facts as before.
While the case relates to professional sport, the way the Tribunal approached the issue has wider relevance for employment status and IR35 (off-payroll working rules).
How the Tribunal reached its decision
The Tribunal did not introduce new tests or reinterpret the law. Instead, it applied well–established principles relating to contractual conditions and a ‘multifactorial approach’ set out in the 1968 – Ready Mixed Concrete v Minister of Pensions case, focusing on the core indicators of employment status: control and mutuality of obligation.
The Tribunal looked at how the arrangements worked in reality, noting that:
- Referees were appointed on a match-by-match basis
- There was no obligation on PGMOL to offer work, or on referees to accept it
- Day-to-day control over how referees carried out their role was limited
Taken together, these factors pointed away from an employment relationship. The Tribunal’s conclusion followed a conventional assessment of the facts, rather than a narrow or technical reading of the law.
Why the decision matters beyond football
The importance of the case lies less in the subject matter and more in the working model being examined.
The Tribunal was considering arrangements that are common across many sectors: skilled individuals engaged on a part-time or ad hoc basis, with work offered and accepted as needed, and no ongoing commitment beyond each assignment. These are precisely the kinds of engagements that often sit at the boundary between employment and self‑employment, particularly under IR35 and the off-payroll rules.
The fact that the Tribunal consistently found these arrangements to fall outside employment, and that this view has now been upheld on appeal, reinforces that established legal principles still carry decisive weight in status disputes.
What this means for businesses and contractors
For organisations assessing employment status, the decision is a useful reminder that outcomes depend on how an engagement operates in practice, not how it is described on paper. In particular:
- A lack of ongoing obligation to provide or accept work remains a key factor
- Control must be real and meaningful, not assumed from oversight or standards
- Status needs to be assessed across the full engagement lifecycle
The case also highlights the limits of checklist-based or automated approaches to status where they do not capture how mutuality of obligation works in reality.
How BKL can help
BKL’s employment tax specialists advise businesses and individuals on employment status and IR35 issues, with a focus on how arrangements work in practice and how tribunals are likely to view them.
We support clients with status assessments, off-payroll reviews, CEST outcomes that don’t reflect the underlying facts, and HMRC enquiries or disputes where they arise. Where needed, we also work alongside legal and HR advisers to help ensure that contractual terms and working practices are aligned.
If you’d like to discuss how this decision may be relevant to your arrangements, get in touch with Stephen Baker using the form below.