What the May 2026 First-tier Tribunal ruling means for IR35 and contractor engagements
The long-running dispute between HMRC and Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL) has reached a pivotal new stage, with the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) delivering its latest decision on 1 May 2026. After over a decade of litigation, this judgment provides important clarification on employment status in this ongoing saga.
Background: A Decade-Long Status Dispute
At the heart of the case was a familiar question: were football referees engaged by PGMOL employees for tax purposes, or genuinely self-employed?
HMRC’s position was that referees in PGMOL’s “National Group” were employees. As such, match fees should have been subject to PAYE and National Insurance.
PGMOL, by contrast, argued that referees were engaged on a match-by-match basis and operated as independent contractors.
The case has moved through every level of the courts:
- Initial FTT and Upper Tribunal decisions favoured PGMOL
- The Court of Appeal overturned aspects of those rulings
- The Supreme Court in 2024 clarified the legal framework but did not determine status
- The matter was remitted to the FTT by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court’s 2024 Direction
In its 2024 judgment, the Supreme Court confirmed that two core elements of employment status were present:
- Mutuality of obligation (once a referee accepted a match)
- A sufficient framework of control
However, crucially, the Court emphasised that these factors are the conclusive test. Instead, it directed the tribunal to apply the third stage of the Ready Mixed Concrete test, namely, whether, when taking all relevant considerations into account, the relationship amounted to employment.
The Latest FTT Decision (May 2026)
The FTT ultimately concluded that the referees were not employees for tax purposes. The tribunal found that the referees’ engagements were contracts for services, not of service.
The FTT focused on the overall nature of the relationship, rather than any single factor:
- No ongoing obligation – There was no obligation on PGMOL to offer matches or on referees to accept them.
- Short, discrete engagements – Each match was treated as a separate arrangement, not part of a continuous employment relationship.
- Freedom to decline or withdraw – Referees could refuse or withdraw from appointments without penalty.
- Wider economic reality – Many referees had other full-time employment and undertook officiating alongside their primary careers.
The tribunal therefore concluded that, when viewed holistically, the relationship was inconsistent with employment.
Why This Outcome Matters
What makes this decision particularly significant is the apparent contrast with the Supreme Court’s earlier findings.
Even though the Supreme Court confirmed the presence of mutuality and control, the FTT still found no employment relationship. This reinforces a key principle:
Employment status is not a “tick-box” exercise; it is a multi-factorial, qualitative assessment of the whole relationship.
For practitioners, this is one of the clearest recent confirmations that:
- The presence of some of the core employment indicators does not automatically lead to employment status
- Stage 3 of the Ready Mixed Concrete test remains decisive
Implications for IR35 and Contractor Engagements
Although PGMOL is not strictly an IR35 case, its relevance is substantial.
The decision underscores several practical points for businesses:
1. Mutuality of obligation has limits
Even where obligations exist during an engagement, that does not mean there is an ongoing employment relationship.
2. Control must be assessed in context
A framework of control alone is insufficient – its nature, extent, and purpose must be considered in the round.
3. The “big picture” prevails
Tribunals will look beyond contractual terms to assess how the relationship operates in practice.
4. Regular work does not equal employment
Repeated engagements do not necessarily create employment if each engagement remains genuinely separate. These themes directly mirror issues commonly seen in IR35 assessments and HMRC enquiries.
What Happens Next?
As a First-tier Tribunal decision, the judgment is not binding precedent and may still be appealed. HMRC has indicated it is considering its next steps.
However, unless overturned, the decision will likely carry persuasive weight, particularly in disputes involving:
- Casual or ad hoc engagements
- Freelancers working alongside other employment
- Project-based or assignment-based roles
Key Takeaways for Businesses
- Employment status remains highly fact-sensitive and context-driven
- A holistic assessment of working practices is essential
- Documentation alone is not sufficient – actual working arrangements must align
Final Thoughts
The latest HMRC v PGMOL decision is one of the most important employment status rulings in recent years. It highlights the continued complexity of status determinations and the risks of over-reliance on individual factors. For businesses, the message is clear: robust, evidence-based assessments of the full working relationship are critical to defending status decisions.