After more than a decade of legal back-and-forth, HMRC has suffered a defeat in its employment status case against football referees. The implications stretch far beyond the pitch.
The Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL) has won a landmark employment status case involving 60 football referees, with a First-tier Tribunal (FTT) confirming that the officials were genuinely self-employed — not employees, as HMRC had long maintained. The ruling means the tax office will not receive the £584,000 in employment taxes it was pursuing.
PGMOL case history: what happened?
Contractor insurer Qdos provided this back story about the case:
- PGMOL engaged these referees as self-employed between 2014/15 and 20215/16, but in 2018, at a First-tier Tribunal (FTT) HMRC argued they should have been classed as employees due to being mutually obliged to work for PGMOL, in the way that an employee is for an employer.
- However, the FTT found no sufficient mutuality of obligation. Despite HMRC appealing, an Upper Tier Tribunal in 2020 upheld this decision, agreeing that the minimum test for employment was not met.
- Another HMRC appeal meant the case progressed to the Court of Appeal in 2022. This reversed earlier decisions, holding that mutuality of obligation did exist for each match day, meaning the case should be reconsidered for employment status at an FTT.
- PGMOL appealed this decision, and the case made its way to the Supreme Court in 2024, where PGMOL’s appeal was dismissed, meaning the case was reheard at an FTT.
- Back at the FTT, PGMOL’s appeal was upheld due to the judge taking the view that referees were not mutually obliged to work for PGMOL, while they had a degree of control over how they performed their services.
The full tribunal judgment reaffirms the very same conclusion reached back in 2018, applied this time within the legal framework clarified by the Supreme Court in 2024.
A case that refused to stay settled
The dispute began when HMRC challenged PGMOL’s decision to engage referees as self-employed during the 2014/15 and 2015/16 seasons. In 2018, the FTT sided with PGMOL, finding no sufficient mutuality of obligation — the legal test for establishing whether someone is in an employment relationship. HMRC appealed, but the Upper Tier Tribunal upheld the original decision in 2020.
Undeterred, HMRC pushed the case to the Court of Appeal in 2022, which reversed the earlier rulings and found that mutuality of obligation did exist for each match day.
PGMOL appealed again, reaching the Supreme Court in 2024, which dismissed PGMOL’s appeal and sent the case back for reconsideration.
At the latest FTT hearing, however, PGMOL’s position was once again vindicated. The tribunal found that referees were not mutually obliged to work for PGMOL, and that they retained a meaningful degree of control over how they performed their services.
What are mutuality of obligation and control — and why do they matter?
Two key legal concepts sat at the heart of this case. Mutuality of Obligation (MOO) asks whether an individual is bound to work for a business in the way an employee is for an employer. Control asks whether the business dictates how that work is carried out. Together, they help determine whether a working relationship constitutes employment — with all the tax obligations that come with it.
HMRC has historically taken the position that MOO exists in virtually every engagement. This case pushes back hard against that assumption.
Industry experts react
Two leading voices in the employment status and contractor space have both welcomed the ruling — but with notably different emphases.
Dave Chaplin, CEO of IR35 compliance firm IR35 Shield, described it as “a decisive defeat for HMRC,” highlighting that the tribunal reached the same conclusion it had eight years earlier.
He praised the decision for taking a holistic approach: rather than applying a narrow test, the tribunal conducted a full, multi-factorial evaluation of the working relationships involved. In his view, the judgment “dismantled many of HMRC’s long-held assumptions about how status case law should be applied.”
Most tellingly, the tribunal did not see this as a finely balanced case and said the relationships with referees lacked the defining hallmarks of employment.
-Dave Chaplin, CEO of IR35 Shield
Chaplin was particularly pointed in his criticism of HMRC’s Check Employment Status for Tax (CEST) tool, calling it “fundamentally out of step with established law.” He noted that CEST’s logic was last updated more than six years ago — before key legal clarifications in 2022 and 2024 — and called for it to be temporarily withdrawn pending a thorough overhaul.
As for HMRC’s status tool, CEST, it is now fundamentally out of step with established law. It relies on oversimplified logic and risks giving businesses a false sense of security. Its logic was last updated over 6 years ago, before the legal clarifications in April 2022 and September 2024. Given its stark misalignment, it should be temporarily withdrawn and sent back to the workshop for repair.
–Dave Chaplin, CEO of IR35Shield
Seb Maley, CEO of contractor insurer Qdos, was equally critical of CEST, describing it as presuming that mutuality of obligation exists in every engagement — an assumption this verdict directly contradicts.
He described the ruling as exposing “a fundamental flaw in the tax office’s employment status tool,” and argued it should be reviewed as a matter of urgency, given how widely CEST has been used to determine tax status across millions of engagements.
“Alongside raising questions about the tax office’s interpretation of case law, it shines the light firmly on one of CEST’s major flaws – which is to presume that mutuality of obligation exists in every engagement. This verdict, however, indicates otherwise. In my opinion, it’s yet another reason to review CEST, which still isn’t up to the job of assessing if an individual is genuinely self-employed.
-Seb Maley, CEO Qdos
Where the two diverge slightly is in tone and focus. Chaplin frames the outcome primarily as a technical and legal vindication, emphasising the robustness of the multi-factorial approach and its value for businesses engaging contractors.
Maley, while sharing that view, places greater weight on the human cost — calling attention to the stress caused by nearly a decade of proceedings, and linking the case directly to the government’s ongoing consultation on employment status simplification. He also flags that HMRC could yet appeal, adding that the drawn-out nature of the case itself is argument enough for reform.
For years, HMRC has insisted that mutuality of obligation exists in every contract – so much so that its Check Employment Status for Tax (CEST) tool barely scratches the surface on it. The latest twist in this case highlights the need for a rigorous review of CEST, which has been used millions of times to set the employment status of individuals, in turn determining whether they pay tax as a self-employed worker or employee.
-Seb Maley, CEO Qdos
In short, both experts agree the ruling is good news for the self-employed and those who engage them, both call for CEST to be urgently reviewed, and both see the case as evidence that the current system is broken. Chaplin is arguably more focused on what businesses can take from the legal clarity; Maley is more focused on what it means for the broader policy debate.
What this means for contractors and businesses
For contractors and the companies that engage them, the ruling offers a degree of reassurance. The tribunal’s willingness to assess the whole picture — rather than applying a formulaic checklist as per the CEST tool— is a reminder that context matters enormously in employment status determinations.
Could HMRC appeal again?
Nothing is off the table. As Maley noted, the fact that this case has already run for the best part of a decade — through five separate hearings — tells its own story about the complexity of employment status law in the UK.
Whether HMRC chooses to pursue a further appeal remains to be seen, but the political and financial appetite for another round of litigation may be limited, particularly with a government consultation on status reform already underway.
For now, the referees — and PGMOL — can take the win.