The Triple Threat is a framework developed by Forward Pivot to describe the state a sport organisation reaches when participation, performance and profitability are all working in its favour at once. Organisations in this sweet spot tend to find that each outcome strengthens the others, with more people playing, better pathways producing players and coaches, and a healthy surplus that can be reinvested in the experience. Those sitting outside it usually find themselves trading one outcome off against another.
The name comes from basketball, where the triple threat position is the stance a player takes on receiving the ball, ready to shoot, pass or dribble. It isn't a move in itself so much as a state of readiness, and a player (or organisation) who holds it has capacity.
What is the Triple Threat framework?
The framework is a simple Venn diagram of three overlapping circles.
Participation is the organisation's capacity to deliver sporting experiences at scale, with attention to the quality of those experiences and not just the numbers.
Performance covers the results the organisation achieves, both on the field through its pathways and off it, through measures such as coach development, equity and staff satisfaction.
Profitability is the organisation's ability to generate a surplus that can be reinvested in its people, programs and participants.
These three outcomes also appear in Forward Pivot's 9 Ps of Effective Sport Development. The other six Ps (People, Purpose, Programs, Partnerships, Places to Belong and Pathways) are the levers an organisation can pull, and the Triple Threat shows what happens when those levers are working together.
What we mean by profitability
The most common response to this framework is a polite reminder that "we're not in it to make money", which is fair, given that most community sport organisations exist for their members. Profitability in this context is about having an engine that funds better coaching, better facilities, inclusion initiatives and fees that stay affordable for families. Organisations that set out only to break even often end up with basic programs, tired volunteers and little room to improve.
We've written before about the goal of being not-for-profitable, where earnings are seen as a reinvestment opportunity in the experiences of members. That's the spirit of the profitability circle here.
The sweet spot
An organisation in the Triple Threat zone has its three outcomes reinforcing one another. Growing participation brings more players, coaches and volunteers into the system, and well-designed pathways turn some of them into high performers and future leaders. The surplus generated along the way is reinvested in coaching, facilities and the participant experience, which in turn keeps people coming back. Each outcome makes the next one a little easier, and the organisation gains room to make good decisions rather than reactive ones.
One example of a decision that moves an organisation towards this state is the introduction of modified competition formats. In our business case for 3x3 basketball, running 3x3 alongside traditional 5v5 competition allowed around 20% more players to take part within the same court booking, gave each player more time on court and more than double the number of decisions, and lifted competition revenue by around 20% with overheads held constant. None of those gains came at the expense of the others, which is the hallmark of the sweet spot.
The six other zones
Most organisations sit in one of the six zones around the centre at any given time, and there's no shame in that. Each zone delivers something of value, but each also comes with a trade-off that tends to show up over time. Knowing which zone you're in is the first step towards moving out of it.
Participation and performance
Your organisation runs excellent programs that keep people involved and produce quality players and coaches, but it relies heavily on grants, sponsors or volunteer goodwill to keep the lights on. That leaves you exposed whenever a funding agreement ends, and your volunteers are often the first to feel the strain. There's a reasonable case for sitting here for a short time, for example while a grant-funded pilot proves your model before you build a sustainable revenue stream around it.
Participation and profitability
Your competitions are full and the finances are comfortable, but there's little in the way of progression for the people taking part. Over time participants plateau and drift away, and you may find you aren't growing your own coaches, officials or leaders. The upside is that your surplus can fund development elsewhere, and a social competition can become a valuable gateway once you connect it to a pathway.
Performance and profitability
Your organisation or program produces strong results and healthy revenue, but largely for those who can afford it. High costs exclude many families, narrow your talent pool and can raise uncomfortable questions about equity. A premium offering can still play a useful role in your system when its surplus is genuinely reinvested to make the broader sport more accessible.
Participation only
You're good at attracting people for a first experience, but you struggle to convert them into ongoing members, so your numbers rise and fall with each campaign. These efforts cost money to run and tend to flatter your annual report more than your membership base. They have their place when you're reaching a new audience or launching something new, provided there's a clear and appealing next step for those who enjoyed it.
Performance only
You invest heavily in a small group of athletes, often at a high cost per participant and with resources drawn away from your broader base. Those who miss selection frequently leave the sport altogether, which shrinks your pool in future years. You may need to lean this way for a period to meet representative obligations or high-performance priorities, but it rarely sustains itself for long.
Profitability only
Your organisation generates income without a clear connection to its purpose, whether through venue hire, merchandise or events that sit apart from your programs. Members can start to feel more like customers, and you risk drifting from your mission. That said, a reliable revenue line is a legitimate asset when you deliberately reinvest its earnings in the participant experience.
Moving towards the sweet spot
Reaching the Triple Threat is rarely the result of one bold decision. More often it's the accumulation of many smaller ones, each tested against all three outcomes before it's made. A useful starting point is to ask your board or leadership team to place the organisation on the diagram as it stands today, and then to place each of its major programs, competitions and revenue streams. The conversation that follows usually reveals which circle is carrying the organisation, which one is being neglected, and which of the six levers in the 9 Ps might shift the balance.
From there, the question for any new initiative becomes a simple one: does this move us closer to the centre, or does it pull us further towards one corner? A pricing change, a new competition format or a facility investment can all be assessed this way, and the answer is often more useful than a standard cost-benefit analysis because it keeps the participant experience in view.
This thinking sits at the heart of how we approach participation strategy at Forward Pivot. Whilst each project is tailored to the organisation, its needs and its budget, our blend of literature review, community surveys, stakeholder interviews and co-design workshops is designed to surface the decisions that serve all three outcomes, so the finished strategy points the organisation towards the sweet spot.
Frequently asked questions
Does every part of the organisation need to sit in the centre? No. The Triple Threat describes the overall state of the organisation, and individual programs will inevitably lean one way or another. A talent squad or a social competition can still play a valuable role, as long as the system as a whole stays balanced and each part is connected to the others.
We're not in it to make money, so why does profitability matter? Profitability here means having the engine to reinvest in your participants, through better coaching, facilities and affordable fees. A surplus that's put back into the experience is what allows a not-for-profit organisation to improve year on year.
How does this relate to Play Well and Win Well? The Triple Threat brings participation and performance into the same conversation, alongside the financial sustainability that both depend on. It can help an organisation see where its participation and high-performance priorities support each other, and where they're competing for the same resources.
Where does your organisation sit?
If you'd like to map your organisation against the Triple Threat with your board or leadership team, we run this as a short facilitated workshop, and it's often a useful first step before developing a new participation strategy. Book at chat with us here.
