The Bryan Robson case: What every UK freelancer needs to know about image rights and IR35
Learn how the Bryan Robson IR35 case affects freelancers working through limited companies. Understand image rights, contract requirements, and how to protect your income from unexpected tax bills
In January 2025, former Manchester United and England footballer Bryan Robson partially won a significant tax appeal that has far-reaching implications for freelancers across the UK. The case centred on IR35 legislation and image rights—two concepts that might sound complex but could dramatically affect how you structure your freelance work and what you pay in tax.
If you work through a limited company, whether you’re a creative professional, consultant, brand ambassador, or any other type of freelancer, this case provides lessons about protecting both your work and your income.
What happened in the Bryan Robson case?
Bryan Robson worked as an ambassador for Manchester United from 2008 onwards, attending events, functions, and promotional appearances on behalf of the club. For most of this period, he contracted directly with the club as an individual. However, in December 2019, his personal service company (Bryan Robson Limited) took over the contract.
HMRC investigated and determined that Robson’s work fell within IR35—meaning he should have been taxed as an employee rather than as a self-employed contractor. The tax authority argued that all payments, including those for image rights, should be subject to income tax and National Insurance at employee rates.
The First-tier Tribunal partially agreed with HMRC but made a distinction: while Robson’s personal appearances were deemed employment under IR35, the tribunal ruled that payments specifically related to image rights should be separated out and excluded from the IR35 calculation.
This split decision—applying IR35 to services but not to image rights—represents an important development in understanding how different types of freelance income should be treated for tax purposes.
What happens next in the Robson Case?
Following the First-tier Tribunal’s decision in January 2025, HMRC was granted permission to appeal the image rights aspects of the ruling. Bryan Robson Limited also sought permission to appeal the IR35 findings, though as of December 2025, the Upper Tribunal has refused permission for some of these grounds while granting others.
The case may progress to higher courts, potentially providing further clarity on how image rights interact with IR35. However, the First-tier Tribunal’s reasoning already offers valuable guidance: image rights income can be separated from personal service income, but only where contracts clearly distinguish between the two types of work and compensation is genuinely split.
Dave Chaplin, CEO of IR35 compliance firm IR35 Shield, who attended the original FTT hearing, said:
The original case at FTT was complex, requiring considerable submissions over a four-day hearing. Whilst HMRC won the appeal, it was unlikely that the final tax bill owed by Bryan Robson Limited would cover HMRC’s internal fees, Counsel’s fees, and the hearing costs, leaving a net loss to the Treasury.
So, one questions why they have chosen to appeal further and waste more taxpayer money. The clue to the reason may lie in the recent Upper-tier decision, which refers to [paragraph 13(8)] other cases currently awaiting final judgment in the Robson case. HMRC appears to be aggressively pursuing Robson because of the totality of tax associated with other cases, rather than because of Robson. This does seem awfully unfair to Robson.
Furthermore, in the recent Budget 2025, the government signalled it would legislate to tax all image rights payments as taxable employment income, to take effect from 6 April 2027. One may ask, why legislate for something if HMRC already believes it is law?
Understanding IR35: The basics every freelancer should know
IR35 legislation, introduced in 2000, aims to identify workers who operate as employees in all but name, often referred to as so-called “disguised employees”. If you work through a limited company or other intermediary but your working relationship resembles employment, HMRC may determine you’re ‘inside IR35’, requiring you to pay income tax and National Insurance at employee rates.
Tests: inside or outside IR35?
Tribunals assess whether you’re inside or outside IR35 using three primary factors:
Control: How much control does the client have over what you do, when you do it, and how you do it? High control suggests employment.
Substitution: Can you send someone else to do the work in your place? True self-employment typically allows substitution.
Mutuality of obligation: Is the client obliged to offer work, and are you obliged to accept it? Strong mutual obligations point towards employment.
In Robson’s case, the tribunal found that Manchester United exercised substantial control over his appearances, there was no genuine right of substitution (only Robson could fulfil the role), and the minimum commitment of 35 appearances every six months created strong mutuality of obligation. These factors tipped the balance towards deemed employment for his personal service work.
Why does this matter for freelancers?
If you’re caught inside IR35, your take-home pay can drop by 25-33%. You’ll pay income tax and National Insurance like an employee but without receiving employment benefits such as holiday pay, sick pay, or pension contributions. Since April 2021, medium and large private sector clients are responsible for determining your IR35 status, but if they get it wrong, both you and they could face substantial tax bills years later.
What are image rights and why do they matter?
Image rights refer to the commercial value of your likeness, reputation, and personal brand. When you license your image for endorsements, sponsorships, brand partnerships, or promotional materials, you’re monetising your image rights—and this income can be treated differently from income for personal services.
The distinction matters because image rights payments can be structured outside IR35 even when personal services fall inside it. In Robson’s case, his contract explicitly included provisions for Manchester United to use his name, image, and likeness in promotional materials. The tribunal recognised this as separate from his obligation to physically attend events.
Who benefits from image rights?
Whilst most commonly associated with sports personalities and influencers, image rights apply to many freelancers:
- Photographers, designers, and artists whose personal brand adds value to their work
- Content creators and influencers who appear in promotional materials
- Consultants and thought leaders who provide testimonials or appear in case studies
- Industry experts who license their name or reputation for endorsements
Basically, any professional whose personal brand generates commercial value beyond their service delivery
If clients use your name, photograph, or personal brand in their marketing, you may be providing image rights that should be separately compensated and potentially structured outside IR35.
Practical lessons from the Robson Case
Your contract should define all services
The tribunal scrutinised Robson’s Ambassador Agreement in detail, examining precisely what services were provided and how they should be categorised. Your contracts need to clearly distinguish between personal services (work you do) and image rights (commercial use of your likeness).
It’s wise to always specify usage in your contracts. For freelancers, licensing agreements are essential — not optional.
A good agreement should clearly define:
- Who can use the image
- For what purposes
- For how long
- Where the image can be used (e.g., online only, print, worldwide or local)
Without these terms, clients may assume they can use your work in unintended ways, according to ASMP, and that can cost you money and control.
If clients use your image in marketing materials, testimonials, or promotional content, specify this separately in your contract with its own fee structure.
Who contracts with you matters
An important detail in Robson’s case was timing. Before December 2019, he contracted personally with Manchester United, not through his limited company. HMRC conceded that IR35 didn’t apply to those earlier periods because the company wasn’t party to the contracts. Only the 16-month period when his company was the contracting party fell under IR35 scrutiny.
Ensure your limited company is actually party to the contract if you want to operate through that structure. Don’t assume that invoicing through your company automatically makes it the contracting party.
Flexibility isn’t enough to stay outside IR35
Robson’s contract included flexibility, meaning he could decline appearances and wasn’t required to attend specific events. However, the minimum commitment of 35 appearances every six months undermined this flexibility. The tribunal found that he could turn down individual requests; however, he ultimately had to accept enough work to meet the minimum threshold, giving Manchester United substantial control.
Be wary of minimum commitment clauses or guaranteed income arrangements. These can indicate mutuality of obligation that pushes you inside IR35, even if you have day-to-day flexibility.
Economic dependence: why it’s a red flag
Manchester United accounted for 87% of Robson’s income in the 2019/20 tax year and 94% in 2020/21. This heavy reliance on a single client was used as evidence that the relationship resembled employment rather than genuine self-employment.
Diversify your client base where possible. Whilst it’s not always feasible, particularly for long-term contracts, heavy dependence on one client strengthens HMRC’s argument that you’re a disguised employee.
Reality of your working relationship trumps contract terms
The tribunal examined not just what the contract said, but how Robson actually worked. They considered the collaborative relationship between Robson and Manchester United, the practical arrangements for appearances, and how decisions were made about which events to attend. The actual working relationship will always be scrutinised alongside—and sometimes instead of—contractual terms.
Ensure your working practices match your contract. If you’ve negotiated terms that suggest self-employment (such as the right to decline work), actually exercise those rights in practice.
Protecting yourself: practical steps for freelancers
Get your contracts right
Your contract is your first line of defence. It should specify:
- What services are you providing (be specific)
- Whether image rights are included and how they’re compensated
- Your right to decline work or send a substitute
- That you control how, when, and where work is performed
- That your limited company is the contracting party (not you personally)
- Terms for using your work in your portfolio or promotional materials
- Consider having a solicitor review your standard contracts, especially if image rights form a significant part of your income.
- Document image rights separately
If clients use your name, image, or reputation in their marketing, create a separate agreement or addendum specifically for image rights licensing.
Detail what uses are permitted (social media, website, print advertising), for how long, in what territories, and for what compensation. This separation makes it easier to argue that these payments should be treated differently from service fees for tax purposes.
Licensing vs selling rights
Many clients will want to use your images. But use doesn’t mean ownership. Here is the difference between licensing and selling or transferring copyrighted material:
Licensing grants a client specific rights (e.g., to use an image on a website for one year or in social media campaigns), while you retain copyright. You can choose different types of licenses — exclusive, non-exclusive, royalty-free, rights-managed — depending on the client and your business model.
Selling or transferring copyright is rare and should only be done with clear legal language and appropriate compensation.
Tip: A non-exclusive license allows you to sell usage rights to multiple clients; an exclusive license usually commands a higher fee because you’re limiting your own future earnings.
Understand your IR35 status
For medium and large private sector clients, they’re responsible for determining your IR35 status. However, you should understand it yourself. Use HMRC’s Check Employment Status for Tax (CEST) tool as a starting point, but recognise its limitations—the Robson case shows that tribunals conduct far more nuanced analysis than any online tool can provide.
For small companies and public sector work, the rules differ, so seek advice specific to your situation.
Keep evidence of your self-employment
If HMRC ever investigates, you’ll need evidence that you operate as a genuine business:
- Records showing you work for multiple clients
- Documentation of times you declined work or sent a substitute
- Evidence you provide your own equipment and bear business risks
- Examples of controlling how and when you work
- Marketing materials showing you operate as an independent business
The Robson case shows how tribunals look at the full picture of your working relationship, not just what’s written in contracts.
Tax implications: What’s changing for image rights
The UK’s Autumn 2024 Budget announced that from the 2027/28 tax year onwards, image rights income will be taxed as earnings. This means that even income correctly structured outside IR35 may face different tax treatment in future.
This doesn’t affect the distinction between personal services and image rights for IR35 purposes (as confirmed in the Robson case); however, it does mean freelancers should review their overall tax planning.
The days of favourable tax treatment for image rights may be coming to an end, even when they remain conceptually separate from personal service income for IR35 analysis.
