As a qualified referee with The Football Association, I find the recent Supreme Court ruling on the employment status of referees fascinating and significant for the profession.
On September 16, 2024, the Supreme Court delivered a judgment regarding the employment status of referees officiating on behalf of The Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL). This organisation is responsible for providing referees for professional matches across England, including the Premier League.
Referees within this structure can either be employed full-time under a formal contract or work part-time while balancing other employment commitments. This ruling primarily affects those part-time referees who do not have a written employment contract.
Part-Time Referees and Their Working Structure
Part-time referees receive match assignments through an online system managed by PGMOL, allowing them to accept or decline matches based on their availability. Crucially, these referees are not obligated to accept every match offered; they can cancel their participation up until the match starts. Their compensation typically includes match fees, travel expenses, and sometimes performance bonuses.
The Legal Challenge: HMRC vs. PGMOL
The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether the relationship between PGMOL and its part-time referees constituted an employment relationship. If classified as employees, PGMOL would be required to deduct income tax and National Insurance contributions from the referees' payments.
Initially, HMRC determined that this relationship did indeed constitute employment, thereby imposing these tax obligations. However, PGMOL contested this decision, arguing that the referees were self-employed. After multiple appeals, the case reached the Supreme Court.
The Court's Findings
To evaluate the case, the Supreme Court referenced the legal precedent established in Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (1968), which outlines two critical criteria for establishing an employment relationship:
Mutuality of Obligation
Sufficient Degree of Control by the Employer
Mutuality of Obligation
Mutuality of obligation refers to the expectation that the employee will personally perform their duties in exchange for payment. In this case, the court found that a mutual obligation existed between the referees and PGMOL from the moment a referee accepted a match assignment until they submitted their match report.
Control by the Employer
For a valid employment contract, the employer must have a significant degree of control over the employee's work. The Supreme Court concluded that PGMOL exercised sufficient control over the referees, who were required to adhere to specific guidelines. PGMOL could enforce these rules, imposing penalties for non-compliance, thus reinforcing the nature of an employment relationship.
The Outcome
Ultimately, the Supreme Court determined that the relationship between part-time referees and PGMOL met the necessary criteria of mutuality of obligation and employer control, classifying the referees as employees of PGMOL. As a result, the case has been remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for further review of the employment status of part-time referees.
Looking Ahead
This ruling not only sets a precedent for referees but may also have wider implications for other part-time workers in the sports industry, such as commentators, photographers, and coaches. As we await further developments, it will be crucial to monitor how this judgment influences employment practices across the sports sector.
References
Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs. (Respondent) v Professional Game Match Officials Ltd. (Appellant). [2024] UKSC 29.
Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance [1968] 2 QB 497
Comments