SO, it’s over.

While the game of football breathes a sigh of relief at the long overdue resolution of the governance crisis, there is understandable concern as to what happens next.

Steven Lowy - the outgoing FFA Chairman - outlined many of those concerns at his press conference in Sydney yesterday, and, as he passes the baton over to the next incumbent, it’s worth reminding the winning side that the hard work is only really just beginning, in healing a fractured (and still fractious) game.

FFA Chairman Steven Lowy (right) speaks after the resolution Source: AAP

Lowy was - and is - correct in his belief that grassroots and the national teams need protection, especially in areas of funding. He also has a point when he states his belief that there is a possibility members may act more as a parliament, rather than an electorate, when the new proposals are implemented. That must be guarded against at all costs.

However, although Lowy reeled off a long line of FFA achievements under the current model, he also omitted to mention that most of them came in the initial phase of the reformed body, under the leadership of his father.

This was the nub of the whole problem.

A hereditary succession was never going to sit easily with some of the stakeholders, particularly as some of the current issues had already started to emerge during the latter years of Frank Lowy’s reign.

The clubs in particular were increasingly irritated - not just at the financial returns from head office from the television deal, but with the strictures placed around their ability to earn independently, and in particular, their lack of a meaningful voice in the halls of power.

With just one vote between them in the old 10-seat congress, the A-League clubs demanded one seat on the board in the 2015 elections, but couldn’t get a seconder for their preferred candidate - Mal Hemmerling.

That, compounded by the refusal of head office to contemplate an independent (or even semi-autonomous) A-League until recently, left them feeling like they had been backed into a corner, and with no other option but to fight.

Steven Lowy made great play of the boards independence and the concept of good corporate governance during his press conference, but while it’s true the model has largely served football in Australia well, his statement does ignore some rather inconvenient truths.

For a start, many of the current board have strong links to the Lowy’s Westfield business through their corporate dealings, thus giving the impression (even if it isn’t always the truth), of a subservient board under the heel of its Chairman. This was underlined before the 2015 election, when a letter from nominations committee Chair, Brian Schwartz, effectively instructed the members to vote for the preferred candidates.

Secondly, if FFA’s corporate governance model was so good, then why was Schwartz the nominations committee Chair in the first place? His appointment to the role flew directly in the face of the Australian Sports Commission’s own good governance guidelines, which state “the Chair of the nominations committee must be independent from the Chair of the board.” At the time, Schwartz was Frank Lowy’s deputy at Westfield, AND on the FFA board!

Furthermore, as far back as 2013, the ASC (who ridiculously decided to get involved in the governance row, late on in the piece), awarded FFA a mark of only 2 out of 5 in its annual appraisal on governance. So alarmed was CEO David Gallop (a former interim Chairman of the ASC), he prepared a paper on a new governance framework for discussion - but it was never debated at board level.

The sad part about the Lowy’s departure from the game is that they are genuine football fans, with a great portfolio of success in securing both business deals, and government support.

But the eventual outcome could so easily have been avoided.

Had FFA acquiesced to that one seat on the board for the clubs in 2015, this wouldn’t have happened. Had they not twice stymied agreements brokered between clubs and state federations in 2017, this wouldn’t have happened. Had they put plans in place for an independent national league (as recommended by the Crawford Report as long ago as 2003), this wouldn’t have happened.

Yet compromise didn’t appear to be in the lexicon. Nothing less than outright victory was ever enough. With the clubs in similarly belligerent mood, the scene was set for an unseemly stoush, that at times descended into the sort of individual personality politics they’d be proud of in Canberra.

Football has been the loser, and the A-League in particular. It’s no coincidence that the words “A-League” appeared only sparingly in Steven Lowy’s valedictory speech yesterday - most of the successes listed belonged to the national teams, or fell within the remit of administrative achievement.

Yet the A-League is the fundamental tenet upon which the health of the game depends. It is the economic driver, the pathway provider, the shop front. For too long, it’s potential has remained unfulfilled due to a lack of attention, aspiration and investment. The clubs are far from blameless in that category either, incidentally.

But to suggest that the game will now crumble because it has been re-democratized is unfair on many who genuinely want the game to grow, and are more than capable of contributing. Good people who have been marginalized for too long for the sake of “good governance.”

To say that “non-Australians” in club land will not look after the game properly is not only laughable (was it not FFA which handed those nasty foreigners the licences in the first place?), but also ridiculous. Have we forgotten such wonderful Australian contributors to football like Clive Palmer and Nathan Tinkler, already?

FFA Chairman Steven Lowy leaves the press conference Source: AAP

The new constitution isn’t perfect, and critics will point out that the voting system is open to manipulation by “bloc” voting. But hasn’t that been the case for the last fifteen years anyway, with the states enjoying a 9-1 advantage - even though some of them represent only a tiny fraction of the national playing base?

What the governance change does offer, is the prospect of a more equitable and therefore democratic representation of stakeholders. Most excitingly, it offers a tantalising glimpse of a properly-funded, independent A-League - the knock-on effects of which, could have positive repercussions for ALL areas of the game. If it is done properly of course.

It will be incumbent upon the media to hold those in power to account - something that hasn’t always been possible in recent years; and for those who believe they are bringing a better alternative to deliver on their promise. Transparency and accountability. Two concepts sorely lacking in recent years.

The Lowy’s should be thanked for their contribution - it was a mighty one, and they should be rightly proud of their achievements. It’s just such a pity it had to end this way.

But times change, and if you refuse to allow evolution, you set in train the process towards revolution. For those bemoaning the change, let it be remembered that without it, FIFA would almost certainly have moved towards imposing a suspension - ruling the Socceroos out of the Asian Cup, and removing the Matilda’s from next years FIFA Women’s World Cup.

Let’s just hope this is the moment in time when we put a stop to this endless cycle of political infighting and upheaval. Frankly, the game deserves better.