The Business Case for 3X3 Basketball as a Co-Existing Grassroots Competition Model
In the same manner that corporations are pivoting to leaner operating models post COVID-19, the sports industry similarly is looking for ways to play within their means moving forward. The sport of basketball is close to my heart and it's clear that competition organisers preparing to resume shortly are going to be faced with at least one of three challenges on a short-to-medium term basis:
Reduced access to facilities;
A need to improve their net margins; and/or
Managing members with less discretionary spend for game fees.
The question is whether we deliver the same competition model into the future, or whether we can explore a different approach that is both more consumer-focused and financially viable?
For mine, the perfect delivery model exists where all core stakeholders needs are being met optimally. As a snapshot at a youth level:
The participant seeks enjoyment, active involvement, success/mastery, playing with core friends, and belonging.
The parent seeks the above for their child plus accessibility and affordability.
The club seeks to sustainably deliver the above for their members, and generate reserves for re-investment in community projects.
The facility seeks profit per court per hour, and venue foot traffic.
With this in mind, I believe the Australian market needs to consider adopting 3X3 basketball as a more prominent competition model alongside the traditional 5v5 approach. 3X3 (FIBA's brand for the 3v3 format) first emerged on the world stage in 2010, designed to engage inclusively with a new segment of participants who didn’t relate to the traditional ‘organised’ forms of basketball. It has taken only a decade for 3X3 to establish itself with the same Olympic medal offering as for 5v5 basketball, but the modified format - whilst popular globally as a staple for youth competitions - has not achieved widespread adoption in Australia outside of tournaments.
Before we disrupt the status quo so brashly on a whim though, let’s explore the business case through the lens of 1) participation; 2) performance; and 3) profitability.
We’ll use the example of Kim, a regional competition manager with one court booked for five hours to cater for her growing Summer Under 12 fixture. Her two options are to deliver:
5v5 games played over a 60-minute schedule with four 10-minute quarters, as they have in previous years; or
3X3 games played over a 25-minute schedule, with teams playing two 10-minute games in each fixture. Teams would play two back-to-back schedules each, resulting in a total of four games played over 50 minutes.
Participation
Under the conditions above, 20% more players can participate within a given court booking. Whilst 3X3 traditionally calls for four players per team, I’ve used five in this model as players will still receive greater court time than within the 5v5 setting (see below). Fixturing 3X3 is admittedly a lengthier process, but not an insurmountable task with the tools now available and worth investing in for the additional membership capacity.
More frequent, shorter games will mean more competitive games and greater storytelling for families to tell their networks. The response to the question ‘how did you go?’ changes from ‘we got beaten by 30 points, what’s for dinner?’ to ‘we lost the first game by 10 but won our second game in a close one!’
[Where physically distancing is being considered, it becomes a noteworthy benefit that the relative space between each player in the half-court (where the majority of play is conducted) is markedly increased in 3X3 versus 5v5.]
Performance
In addition to more players being able to participate, players in the 3X3 competition model would receive 20% more time on court, take more shots, and make more than double the number of decisions made under a traditional 5v5 competition model. I have used the findings of McCormick et al. (2012) and Piñar et al. (2009), who have both explored this area in great depth, to estimate a conservative ‘touches per player’ figure. Their research validates that 3X3 forms an optimal learning environment for youth players and fosters the development of creative athletes, an approach which has long been leveraged by several European nations .
So far, so good - what player or parent would say 'no' to more court time and more action? But with players experiencing more of the things they love, and more players getting to access this - surely this model can’t be good for our top or bottom line?
Profitability
Following the approach outlined above, competition managers will see a 20% increase in revenue with all overhead costs (referees, venue supervisors, court hire) remaining constant. I'm not aware of a case study in this space to date (please connect with me if you are interested), but the data suggests that investing 10% of yearly competition revenue into a transition from 5v5 to 3X3 has potential to yield a ROI of over 100% in the first year. This is calculated before factoring in the additional commercial opportunities that exist with a larger participation base. It makes sense though; we are providing more people with an exciting basketball experience within the same costing framework.
Understandably, sporting organisations may wish to pass these benefits on as savings to their members, and therefore have the opportunity to reduce admission fees by up to 17%.
The increase in ‘unique participants per hour’ outlined earlier will also pique the interest of stadium managers as this metric translates to periphery revenue such as canteen sales and exposure to sponsorship assets.
Summary
The benefits of adopting 3X3 as a competition model can be summarised as:
More highly skilled players, due to the increased touches, decisions and actions players are involved in.
Greater retention of players, due to the more enjoyable format which provides more opportunities for success (i.e. scoring a goal).
Cheaper to operate on a per-head basis for sporting organisations to deliver, by using court space more effectively.
A better parent experience, who see their child receive more court time and potentially shorten their stay at the venue (acknowledging the downside of being required to act as scorekeeper for more games).
Importantly, the constraints of team numbers and timing schedules can be adjusted to skew the benefits according to each organisation's goals. However in almost all scenarios, the net experience will be a positive one for all stakeholders.
I don't believe in replacing all 5v5 competitions with 3X3 though. Rather, I’m advocating for a blended approach based on participation stage, with Under 12 and Masters (35+) participants a logical starting point to co-design with. The full-court game still has a strong role in development and performance from adolescence, but it is played through all four school terms in many regions across Australia. Starting with one term of 3X3 each year would be worth a long look based on this data with a goal to improve participant experiences, increase profitability of grassroots competitions, serve our Olympic aspirations and decrease over-training in junior players.
Whilst modified and inclusive formats are often thought to be loss-leaders viewed secondary to mainstream sport delivery formats, interventions such as 3X3 Basketball hold the potential to grow participation whilst simultaneously contributing to high-performance outcomes and generating positive financial results.
[N.B. My sixth grade teacher Mrs. Patford taught me to always show my workings, so here they are. There may be limitations not covered in this condensed analysis, and I would welcome any feedback and robust discussion to evolve things further - thanks for reading.]
Acknowledgements
McCormick, B. T., Hannon, J. C., Newton, M., Shultz, B., Miller, N., & Young, W. (2012). Comparison of physical activity in small-sided basketball games versus full-sided games. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 7(4), 689-697.
Piñar, M. I., Cárdenas, D., Alarcón, F., Escobar, R., & Torre, E. (2009). Participation of mini-basketball players during small-sided competitions. Revista de Psicología del Deporte, 18(3), 445-449.
