The latest ruling in the long-running PGMOL case is important for contractors because it reinforces a central point about IR35: employment status is determined by looking at the relationship as a whole, not by ticking off individual factors in isolation.
The dispute centred on whether football referees engaged by Professional Game Match Officials Ltd (PGMOL) were employees for tax purposes when officiating English Football League matches, or genuinely self-employed. HMRC argued that referees should be treated as employees and that match fees should therefore be subject to PAYE and National Insurance. PGMOL maintained that referees operated independently and were engaged on a match-by-match basis.
After several years of litigation, including a Supreme Court hearing in 2024, the latest tribunal ruling concluded that the referees were not employees.
Importantly, the decision does not rewrite IR35 law. What it does do is show how tribunals are applying long-established employment status principles in practice.
A contract does not automatically mean employment
One of the most important aspects of the case is the distinction between establishing that a contract exists and establishing that employment exists.
The Supreme Court had already confirmed that once a referee accepted a match appointment, there was sufficient mutuality of obligation and control for there to be a contract in place. But that did not automatically make the referees employees. Instead, the case was sent back to the tribunal to consider the wider relationship in the round.
After doing so, the tribunal concluded that the referees were still operating independently rather than as employees.
That distinction matters enormously in IR35 disputes because many contractor engagements will naturally involve contractual obligations, agreed deliverables and some level of oversight. The existence of those features alone is not enough to establish employment status.
Mutuality of obligation was present, but limited
One of the clearest takeaways from the ruling is the tribunal’s treatment of mutuality of obligation (MOO).
In PGMOL, once a referee accepted a match, there was an obligation to officiate it and an obligation on PGMOL to pay for it. For most contractors, that will sound entirely familiar. A client agrees work, the contractor delivers services and payment follows.
What mattered to the tribunal was the limited nature of those obligations. The arrangement only applied to each individual match. There was no obligation on referees to accept future work and no obligation on PGMOL to offer it. The relationship effectively reset after every engagement.
That point is significant because mutuality is often treated as a decisive indicator in IR35 discussions. The PGMOL ruling reinforces that it is not. As several commentators noted following the judgment, mutuality is often simply the minimum needed for a contract to exist at all. It does not, by itself, establish employment.
Control existed, but not in an employment sense
The tribunal took a similar approach when examining control.
PGMOL imposed extensive professional standards. Referees were subject to appointment systems, assessments, fitness requirements and performance reviews. On paper, that can appear highly structured and potentially employment-like.
However, the tribunal drew a clear distinction between oversight and direction. While PGMOL could set standards and expectations around performance, it did not control how referees carried out their core role during a match. There was no real-time supervision, no instruction during performance and no ability to direct decision-making on the pitch itself.
That distinction is particularly relevant for contractors because many engagements involve governance structures, compliance requirements or reporting frameworks. The key distinction for contractors is whether a client is simply setting what needs to be delivered and the requirements to be met, which is normal in contracting, or whether it is directing how the work is actually carried out, which is much more typical of employment.
Independence ultimately decided the outcome
The tribunal placed significant weight on the referees’ overall independence.
The referees were paid per match rather than receiving a salary, had no guaranteed income, and remained free to accept or reject appointments. Crucially, they were not economically dependent on PGMOL in the way an employee typically depends on an employer.
Taken together, these factors pointed away from employment and towards individuals operating in business on their own account, even though certain individual features of the arrangement could have suggested a contractual framework.
That broader assessment ultimately mattered more than any single status factor viewed in isolation.
What the ruling says about HMRC and CEST
The case is also a useful reminder that employment status is determined by legislation and case law rather than HMRC guidance or automated tools.
HMRC’s Check Employment Status for Tax (CEST) tool is often used as part of IR35 assessments, but it is not legally binding and tribunals are not required to follow it. The courts have repeatedly reinforced that status decisions must be based on the full factual reality of the engagement rather than simplified indicators or checklist-style assessments.
For contractors disputing a status decision based on CEST, this strengthens the position that the real working practices matter more than the tool’s outcome. If those day to day facts do not match the determination, there is a clearer basis to challenge whether the correct legal test has been applied.
What contractors should take from the case
The decision does not make it easier or harder to fall inside IR35. Instead, it reinforces how the existing tests should be applied.
Mutuality will often exist in modern working arrangements, and some level of oversight or control is also common in professional contracting. Neither is unusual and neither is decisive on its own.
The key question remains whether the contractor is genuinely operating independently and in business on their own account, or whether the relationship more closely resembles employment when viewed as a whole.
Looking for more IR35 advice?
IR35 is a tax law which seeks to ensure no tax advantage is gained by disguising employment as self-employment. But what are the rules?
In this guide, we run through the key things you need to know about IR35 as a self-employed professional, including the difference between 'inside' and 'outside' ...
In this secret contractor blog, an anonymous IPSE member shares their verdict on how much more you should charge for working inside IR35.
