Supreme Court Ruling on Football Referees’ Tax Status:
A Wake-Up Call for Employers and Gig Platforms
In a landmark decision, the UK Supreme Court has ruled that part-time football referees may qualify as employees for tax purposes, even where they work on a freelance, gig-like basis. The ruling—Professional Game Match Officials Ltd v HMRC—could have a significant impact on how employers, platforms, and contractors manage tax status, worker rights, and IR35 compliance.
Although the case concerned elite-level referees, the implications extend to any organisation engaging contractors, freelancers, or gig workers, particularly where services are provided personally and subject to some level of oversight or guidance.
The Background: A Gig with PAYE Consequences
At the centre of the dispute were 60 referees, many with full-time day jobs, who officiated matches for Professional Game Match Officials Ltd (PGMOL). Despite being treated as self-employed, HMRC argued that their relationship with PGMOL constituted employment for tax purposes, and issued a tax assessment of over £580,000 covering two tax years.
PGMOL challenged this across multiple tribunals. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld HMRC’s position and sent the case back to the lower tribunal to confirm whether the referees should, in fact, be treated as employees for tax purposes.
Why Did the Supreme Court Rule This Way?
The Court examined two key tests for determining employment status:
Mutuality of Obligation – Was there a duty for PGMOL to offer work and for the referees to accept it during the relevant period?
Control – Did PGMOL have sufficient influence over how the referees carried out their duties?
It concluded that:
Mutuality did exist during the period the referees were engaged for each match—from arrival at the ground to submitting the match report.
Control was present, even though referees made decisions independently on the pitch. PGMOL could issue feedback, guidance, and performance assessments, which created a framework of control.
The Court emphasised that control doesn’t require real-time supervision—it can exist through post-event oversight or rules of conduct.
Why This Matters Beyond Football
This judgment will likely reshape how tax status is determined across multiple sectors that rely on independent contractors and gig economy models. It confirms that:
Short-term or one-off engagements can still involve employment for tax purposes.
Control doesn’t have to be immediate or hands-on. It can exist through procedures, expectations, or retrospective feedback.
Personal service is key: If a worker is expected to show up in person to complete the task, without a real substitution option, the engagement leans toward employment.
This is particularly relevant for:
Gig platforms (e.g. ride-hailing, food delivery)
Media and events companies
Tech and creative industries using freelancers
Any employer using casual labour or independent consultants
What About IR35?
While this wasn’t an IR35 case, the Supreme Court’s analysis of control and mutuality aligns with the IR35 off-payroll working rules in force for private sector organisations since April 2021.
Organisations engaging contractors via personal service companies should now:
Revisit their IR35 status assessments
Ensure their reasoning isn’t based solely on a lack of on-the-job supervision
Consider if feedback, conduct rules, or substitution restrictions create control.
Practical Actions for Employers and Platforms
Review how you engage gig workers, contractors and freelancers
Especially where services are provided in person and subject to performance expectations or feedback.Reassess employment status and contracts
Make sure engagements reflect reality. Don’t assume self-employment applies just because there’s no day-to-day oversight.Strengthen your IR35 compliance process
Ensure that your status determination tools and assessments account for the broader interpretation of control and mutuality.Be cautious with substitution clauses
A substitution right must be genuine, not theoretical. If your business expects a specific person to turn up every time, this undermines claims of self-employment.FAQs: Supreme Court’s Referee Ruling
Q: Does this mean all self-employed people are now employees?
A: No—but it does mean that even short-term or task-based engagements can create an employment relationship for tax purposes if mutual obligation and control are present.Q: What counts as control?
A: Control isn’t just supervision during the work—it includes guidance before, feedback after, and the ability to enforce standards or issue consequences.Q: How does this affect gig economy businesses?
A: Platforms should review how they brief, monitor, and manage gig workers. Policies that imply oversight or require workers to operate a certain way may trigger employment status.Q: Will this lead to employment rights too, or just tax implications?
A: While this case was about tax, its reasoning is based on employment law principles. It may support arguments by gig workers seeking employment rights like holiday pay and sick leave.Q: Can I still rely on substitution clauses to prove self-employment?
A: Only if the clause is genuinely exercised, and the hirer does not care who performs the work. In most real-world scenarios, that’s a hard standard to meet.Final Thoughts
The Supreme Court’s ruling offers a clear warning to businesses that rely on flexible labour models: even ad hoc, gig-based or short-duration roles can be deemed employment for tax (and potentially legal) purposes.
If you engage contractors, freelancers, or casual staff, now is the time to audit your workforce, review your contracts, and update your compliance frameworks—before HMRC or the courts do it for you.
Our employment team can help you assess risk, review engagement models, and ensure you’re meeting your legal obligations.