Employment status: mutuality and control are not the final whistle

A recent decision from the First-tier Tribunal offers a clear reminder that employment status is rarely simple. In the case of Professional Game Match Officials Ltd v HMRC, the tribunal found that national football referees were not employees for tax purposes. Even though the Supreme Court previously noted that mutuality of obligation and control were present in their individual match assignments, the tribunal ruled these factors alone are not enough to establish employment.

The tribunal focused on the broader reality of the relationship. The referees retained the freedom to decline work or pull out of appointments without fear of disciplinary action. Furthermore, their refereeing work acted as a secondary activity alongside full-time jobs, meaning they lacked the economic dependency often tied to traditional employment. The controls imposed by the organization were viewed as regulatory or developmental rather than direct managerial supervision.

This outcome provides a vital lesson for employers who work with contractors or casual staff. Official labels or contracts are not the final word when authorities assess these relationships. Tribunals look at the full picture of how the work happens on the ground.

Employers should evaluate their current arrangements by looking at whether individuals have genuine autonomy, how the work is actually performed, and whether the person is truly economically dependent on the engager. It is important to document the rationale behind status decisions and update that assessment whenever the nature of the work changes. Status is assessed in the round, and small details about how the relationship operates often carry the most weight in legal outcomes.