In Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Professional Game Match Officials Ltd (2024), the Supreme Court was called to determine the employment status of football referees engaged by Professional Game Match Officials Ltd (PGMOL). The key issue was whether these referees should be considered employees for tax purposes, which would obligate PGMOL to deduct income tax and National Insurance Contributions (NICs) under PAYE.

Background

PGMOL engages referees on a seasonal basis to officiate in football matches. These referees typically take on this role in their spare time while holding other full-time employment. Referees are appointed annually, but the actual work—officiating matches—is arranged on a match-by-match basis.

The HMRC argued that PGMOL should classify the referees as employees, meaning match fees paid to them should be subject to PAYE tax deductions. HMRC contended that both the seasonal arrangement (the overarching contract) and individual match contracts involved enough obligations and control to constitute an employment relationship.

PGMOL maintained that referees were independent contractors. According to PGMOL, the referees had no obligation to accept matches, and PGMOL had no obligation to offer them a certain number of matches, thereby lacking the mutuality of obligation necessary for an employment contract. Additionally, PGMOL argued that once a referee was on the field, it had no control over their decisions or conduct, making the relationship inconsistent with the legal definition of employment.

Legal Proceedings

The case initially went before the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT), which found that there was no employment relationship. It ruled that while there were overarching agreements for the season, these were not contracts of employment. Each individual match constituted a separate contract, and crucially, these lacked sufficient mutuality of obligation and control to be deemed employment contracts. The referees had the freedom to decline matches, and PGMOL had limited control over their actions during the matches.

On appeal, the Upper Tribunal (UT) upheld the FTT’s finding on mutuality of obligation but questioned the FTT’s conclusions about control, sending the issue back for further consideration.

Supreme Court Ruling

In the final ruling, the Supreme Court overturned the earlier tribunals’ findings. The court ruled that:

  • Mutuality of obligation: Even though referees could decline matches, once they accepted a match, they were bound by mutual obligations—PGMOL would provide the match, and the referee would officiate. This mutuality extended from the moment the referee accepted the match offer until the submission of the match report, fulfilling the requirements for an employment contract during the period of the match.
  • Control: While referees had independence during a match, PGMOL imposed various obligations and expectations on referees before, during, and after matches, such as reporting, adherence to protocols, and standards of behavior. The court found that this amounted to a sufficient framework of control for an employment relationship.

Outcome and Implications

The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed PGMOL’s appeal, ruling that both mutuality of obligation and control existed during individual match contracts. The case was remitted back to the First-Tier Tribunal to determine if, based on these findings, the individual match contracts should be classified as employment contracts.

This ruling has broad implications for industries that engage workers on a per-contract basis, especially in sports, entertainment, and the gig economy. It clarifies that even where autonomy exists in day-to-day activities, an overarching framework of control and mutual obligations can still create an employment relationship for tax purposes