One of the most compelling insights from this study is that leveraging a major event for community benefit is not a one-time opportunity, but an extended and often turbulent journey. Initially, the event leveraging group operated under a shared governance model, with loosely coordinated volunteer efforts, low formality, and mutual enthusiasm. But over time, as they attempted to secure funding, institutionalise programs, and extend their legacy beyond the Pan/Parapan American Games, this structure became unsustainable.

In response, the group transitioned to a lead organisation model, with one partner stepping in to coordinate. This evolution wasn’t smooth—it reflected deeper tensions over control, legitimacy, and purpose. Eventually, a Network Administrative Organisation (NAO) was introduced to stabilise coordination, fundraise more effectively, and formalise relationships. What this demonstrates is a fundamental reality for cities and organisations seeking long-term community impact from events: governance structures must evolve as the nature and intensity of collaboration changes (Provan & Kenis, 2008).

The paper shows that adaptability, not initial enthusiasm, determines long-term impact. Static models of event leverage governance are unlikely to endure. Instead, dynamic models that shift based on needs, resources, and legitimacy offer a more realistic and sustainable path.

While funding and capacity are crucial, the study reveals that legitimacy—perceived credibility, trustworthiness, and alignment with community values—is what ultimately holds event leverage networks together or tears them apart. The original group gained initial legitimacy through association with the Pan/Parapan American Games and its community development goals. But over time, that event-driven legitimacy faded, and partners began to question whether the group still served a broader public purpose.

This legitimacy crisis was exacerbated by shifts in governance. When one organisation took on a more dominant coordination role, others perceived a loss of autonomy and mutual accountability. Without a shared sense of ownership, partners disengaged, and external stakeholders (such as funders and municipalities) grew sceptical. It wasn’t until the creation of a neutral, dedicated Network Administrative Organisation (NAO) that the group began to regain legitimacy—now grounded not in the original event, but in proven, ongoing community impact.

For practitioners, this underscores a crucial insight: you can’t rely on the halo of the event forever. Legitimacy must be constantly earned through inclusive governance, transparent operations, and demonstrated value to stakeholders. Neglect this, and even the most promising initiatives can unravel.

At the heart of this case lies a strategic pivot: a transition from event-centric coordination, where activities were aligned around the Games, to issue-centric governance, where long-term community sport development became the anchor. This shift didn’t happen overnight. It evolved through phases of fragmentation, reflection, and eventually, reform.

Initially, the leveraging collective operated in an "event-leverage" mode—programming, partnerships, and governance revolved around the timeline and legacy ambitions of the Pan/Parapan American Games. But once the event concluded, the group lacked a unifying driver. In the absence of the Games’ urgency and visibility, members struggled to sustain momentum. Programming became disjointed, and some partners left.

What turned the tide was a deliberate realignment. Rather than clinging to the memory of the event, the group reframed its purpose around addressing persistent community issues—social inclusion, sport participation for people with disabilities, and youth development. This new mission attracted different partners, reengaged old ones, and justified the creation of a purpose-built NAO. The group no longer relied on the periodic flash of mega-events but operated with long-term strategic intent.

For managers and policymakers, this transformation is instructive. Sustainable impact demands more than event leverage—it demands issue ownership. Events can catalyse momentum, but enduring change requires anchoring your efforts in ongoing social needs that transcend the event itself.

Behind every successful network transformation lies a handful of key individuals who act as boundary spanners—those rare figures who can move between sectors, align interests, and bridge fragmented efforts (Ziakas & Costa, 2010). In this case, it was the presence of a strategic broker—a long-standing actor who had credibility with both government and community partners—that kept the collective alive during moments of uncertainty.

When the network began to fragment after the Games, it wasn’t a formal institution or plan that held things together. It was a person: a respected champion who informally convened meetings, maintained communications, and nurtured trust among increasingly disillusioned stakeholders. This broker understood the political landscape, spoke the language of funders, and could still go into a disability sport program and be respected.

Their impact underscores a crucial truth: governance forms may evolve, but human relationships and leadership are the glue. Without this strategic actor, the transition to a new, formalised NAO model may not have occurred—or would have happened too late.

For event strategists and city leaders, this raises an important question: are you investing enough in the people—not just the structures—who can span boundaries, translate between worlds, and hold the network together during evolution?