The First-tier Tribunal has found for PGMOL and held that referees are not employees for tax purposes in its decision in Professional Game Match Officials Ltd v HMRC [2026] UKFTT 00654 (TC) (PGMOL).
In doing so, it confirms the critical importance of standing back, looking at the whole picture and applying a qualitative, multi-factorial assessment of mutuality, control and other factors, to determine the overall character of the relationship between the parties.
The long running PGMOL case concerns the employment status for tax purposes of certain football referees. The case is acknowledged to be of wider importance given HMRC’s continuing compliance focus on employment status.
Most recently, the Supreme Court’s decision in PGMOL v HMRC [2024] UKSC 29, confirmed that the irreducible minimum of both Stage 1 (mutuality of obligation) and Stage 2 (a sufficient framework of control), of the tests set out in Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (RMC) were satisfied. It also made clear that, of itself, these stages are not determinative of employment status and remitted the case to the Tribunal to determine Stage 3, the final stage, of the RMC framework.
The decision provides a clear articulation of the nature of the RMC Stage 3 exercise. The Tribunal emphasised that Stage 3 is a qualitative, multi-factorial evaluation, in which the relationship between the parties must be assessed “in the round”.
Crucially, the Tribunal emphasised that at Stage 3, the task is not to revisit whether mutuality of obligation or control (Stages 1 and 2 of the RMC framework) exist in a technical threshold sense. Rather, the question is what the nature, extent, and significance of the mutual obligations and the framework of control reveal about the character of the relationship and whether it is consistent with a relationship of employment.
The exercise also involves assessing how other factors, together with mutuality of obligation and control, operate together in practice and, having done so, standing back to determine what the cumulative picture reveals about the overall character of the relationship.
Standing back, the Tribunal considered for the purposes of Stage 3 of the RMC framework that, given mutuality of obligation was episodic and choice-driven (appointments could be declined or withdrawn from, without consequence), control was largely regulatory rather than managerial, and economic dependency and subordination were lacking. It considered the character of the relationship was not one of employment.
The Tribunal considered the result “was not finely balanced”. It remains to be seen whether this will be the final word on the matter or whether HMRC will appeal the Tribunal’s decision.
This decision reinforces that employment status will rarely be determined by whether mutuality of obligation and control exist in principle.
An overall, qualitative assessment of what the contractual terms, surrounding context and the way in which the relationship between the parties operates in practice reveals about its true character, will be critical. This requires a detailed consideration of the facts, and an exercise of evaluative judgment in what can often be complex, long running and variable engagements.
Please speak to the authors or your usual KPMG in the UK contact if you would like to discuss further.
For further information please contact:
