What does PGMOL’s win over HMRC mean for contractors?

The May 1st 2026 decision from the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) in Professional Game Match Officials Ltd v HMRC is a significant status decision, but it is not applicable to all. The PGMOL case is much narrower than that.

PGMOL V HMRC: what’s the real importance?

The real importance of the decision in favour of PGMOL is that it shows what happens after mutuality of obligation and the framework of control have been established.

HMRC won those gateway points in the Supreme Court.

But on remission, PGMOL still won because the FTT held that the individual match engagements were contracts for services, not contracts of employment.

That makes PGMOL’s win important for IR35 and off-payroll working, but it needs handling careful, writes employment status expert Rebecca Seeley Harris, a tax lawyer and the founder of Re Legal Consulting.

What is the history of PGMOL?

The litigation history of PGMOL is now well known. The original FTT found that the National Group referees contracted with PGMOL, but that the individual match engagements were not employment contracts. The Upper Tribunal upheld the result on mutuality. The Court of Appeal disagreed, holding that both mutuality and control were present. The Supreme Court then confirmed that each accepted match appointment involved the irreducible minimum of mutuality and a sufficient framework of control.

What is Ready Mixed Concrete Stage Three also known as?

But the Supreme Court in September 2024 also made clear that this was not the end of the analysis for these referees. Instead, the PGMOL case had to return to the FTT for the full Ready Mixed Concrete stage three evaluation, also known as ‘RMC 3.’

That is where PGMOL won.

Was RMC 3 decisive in the PGMOL case?

The FTT’s task was not to ask again whether mutuality of obligations at RMC 1 and a sufficient framework of control at RMC 2 existed. That was established in the Supreme Court. The question was what those obligations and controls looked like in context. That distinction matters.

The tribunal treated RMC 3 as a qualitative assessment, not a mechanical checklist. It stood back and considered the cumulative picture.

What’s the key takeaway about Mutuality in PGMOL?

On mutuality, the accepted match appointment created a work/wage bargain. That pointed towards employment. But its weight was limited because it was confined to a single match. There was no ongoing obligation on PGMOL to offer future matches and no obligation on referees to accept them. Referees could close off dates, reject appointments and, importantly, withdraw even after accepting a fixture without contractual breach or disciplinary sanction.

There is, however, a legitimate question whether the FTT went too far in treating the freedom to decline appointments and withdrawal after acceptance as strongly inconsistent with employment. Likewise, the tribunal’s reliance on Windle and Carmichael is not uncontroversial. But for present purposes, the FTT treated the mutuality as narrow, intermittent and permeated by choice.

Control in the PGMOL case: Control was regulatory, not managerial

Control was the more nuanced issue.

The Supreme Court had already held that PGMOL had sufficient control to clear the threshold. The FTT therefore had to assess the nature, reach and purpose of that control. It accepted that PGMOL had real control through appointments, fitness requirements, integrity rules, assessment, coaching and discipline. Those were not trivial features.

However, the FTT drew a distinction between regulatory or developmental control and employer-style managerial control. PGMOL could influence eligibility, progression and future appointments. It could assess and coach referees. But it could not direct the core officiating function during the match.

What’s one of the most useful parts of the PGMOL ruling relating to Control?

Referees had final authority in applying the “Laws of the Game,” and misapplication of those laws was a regulatory matter for the FA, not an employment-style disciplinary matter for PGMOL.

That distinction is one of the most useful parts of the decision.

Control is not just about whether the engager has rules, procedures, assessments or quality assurance. The question is what those controls are for, where they come from, and whether they place the individual in a position of employment-style subordination.

In PGMOL, did integration point strongly to employment?

The First-tier Tribunal also gave weight to integration.

National Group referees were plainly operationally embedded in PGMOL’s systems. They received appointments through PGMOL, wore kit, attended training and were subject to assessment.

But the tribunal held that this was not the same as organisational integration. Their professional authority came from the FA and the wider refereeing structure, not from PGMOL as an employer.

Economic reality mattered to FTT judge Geraint Williams

The referees were paid fixed match fees and had little financial risk, which can point towards employment. But FTT judge Geraint Williams gave greater weight to the fact that refereeing was secondary to their main occupations.

Refereeing “did not pay the bills”. There was no salary, retainer or guaranteed income. The referees were not economically dependent on PGMOL in the way an employee normally is.

What do these findings in PGMOL mean for limited company contractors?

For contractors concerned about IR35, the PGMOL case is helpful but only within limits. The case assists where:

• the role is genuinely ancillary
• the individual has a primary occupation elsewhere
• there is no retainer or guaranteed income
• the individual can decline work without real economic pressure
• the engager’s controls are regulatory or quality-assurance controls rather than managerial direction.

As an employment status case, PGMOL helps far less where the work is the individual’s main income stream, where refusal of work carries real financial consequences, where regularity creates economic reliance, or where assessment and discipline operate as performance management.

What’s the key takeaway from PGMOL?

Even after mutuality and control are established, there is no automatic presumption of employment. RMC 3 still matters. The quality of mutuality, the character of control, integration and economic dependence remain central to the status question.

PGMOL is a reminder that employment status is not decided by labels or by isolated indicators. It is decided by the overall legal and economic character of the relationship. Here, the FTT found highly skilled professionals undertaking discrete engagements within a regulated framework, while retaining substantial autonomy and independence. That was enough to defeat HMRC’s case.

A final note

This is a First-tier Tribunal case and as such, does not set a precedent.  A precedent will only be set if HMRC appeals.  That is a risky strategy if the Revenue loses, but the case has a lot of points that still need settling.