Few would argue that the old power structures were hindering the game's development. There were allegations of cronyism and decisions being made by vested interests which were not necessarily in the long-term interests of the sport. In addition there were questions over governance and how representative the board was of the game as a whole. On the field the "product" – the games themselves – were pretty good: certainly in the halcyon days of the NSL, the 1980s and 1990s, Australia produced dozens of top level players who were able to forge careers at big overseas clubs. But that was overshadowed all too often by the off-field activities. Fast forward from 2003, when the Crawford report was released, and its tempting to say 'plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose' – the more it's changed, the more it's stayed the same. The name has changed – it's now Football Federation Australia – but critics hold that soccer's controlling board is still a narrowly focused group with accusations that it does not widely represent the game's stakeholders.

Crawford advocated a separate entity to run the old NSL to guarantee its independence from the sport's governing body. The A-League is still controlled by Soccer Australia's successor, Football Federation Australia. Relations between the clubs and the FFA are increasingly fractious. We haven't had a formal separation of powers, and the FFA shows no sign of wanting to relinquish control. But unless things change, the clubs may feel the time is fast approaching when they have to decide the matter for themselves and break away to set up their own A-League management body: at least they could point to the widely acclaimed Crawford report as justification for their actions. There remains disquiet about the manner in which Lowy junior succeeded his father as chairman, with little or no opposition.

There is also a view that many running soccer have a tin ear when it comes to the game's culture and soul. They might understand the economics of stadium management, servicing sponsors and cutting a TV deal (and the newly negotiated agreement which nets the game $60 million a year for the next six years might not, when the sports TV landscape shakes out, look like a bad one considering the ratings local soccer generates.But, it sometimes seems, they don't always "feel' the game in the way that lifelong fans do. The debate over expansion, the allocation of the game's resources – with clubs agitating for a bigger share of the TV revenues and grassroots organisations wanting a slice of any windfall to ameliorate the costs of playing for juniors – and the level of wider representation in the sport's governing corridors is a case in point. Lowy junior and the FFA chief executive David Gallop flew to Zurich this week for meetings with FIFA boss Gianni Infantino and several high ranking FIFA executives. They said it was a visit to discuss all manner of issues, but the trip was widely reported as a desperate bid to gain FIFA backing to delay the implementation of a wide number of change's to Australian soccer's governance structure. Those changes are being urged so that the board more fully represent the game's stakeholders rather than a narrow cadre who have maintained control for the past decade.

The deadline for those changes is the end of March, and they would, when implemented, see players, grassroots representatives from local clubs, futsal, the referees, among others, broaden the franchise to vote on board positions to ensure those governing the sport have the widest possible representative base. If it was an effort to stall on reform (which FFA denies) the trip to Zurich failed. FIFA made it clear that they want the changes to be made swiftly – and the FFA will comply, as they made clear in a statement issued on Friday which said: "FFA indicated its intention to hold further discussions with stakeholders (including Member Federations, A-League clubs and the PFA) in coming weeks with a view to implementing membership changes through an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) of its Members by the end of March." It often appears that the FFA management have been dragged to the expansion table by a groundswell, almost an uprising, from the supporters who have followed the game all their lives. Boredom is setting in with the A-League, and the fans know it. There are terrific individual games, closely fought contests which provide thrills, tension and drama.

But the sheer monotony (a word used by Melbourne City's stand-in coach Michael Valkanis in the lead-up to the derby on Friday) of playing the same teams week in week out, often with rotating coaching and playing personnel who move between clubs, is starting to grate. Expansion is not the only answer to this. The agitation for a second division is also growing and with that promotion and relegation which would achieve two things. First, a second division would provide a launching pad for new clubs and those old teams from the NSL to come back into football's mainstream. It would provide more jobs for players, more opportunities for coaches and grow the football infrastructure accordingly. It would also make things much more interesting. A battling team at the bottom of the A-League now is under no pressure. If it could go down to the second tier there would be a wholly different sense of urgency to things. The FFA has a lot on its plate: it needs to find a peace process to mend its bridges with an increasingly militant group of club owners.

It needs to institute reforms to make its governing body more representative, and it needs to think creatively, flexibly, and, more importantly, be audacious when it comes to expanding the A-League and bringing in new clubs. Lowy needs to stand tall as an inspirational leader – and the next few months will perhaps define his chairmanship.