Somewhat to my surprise, it was a British Conservative Member of Parliament who pronounced most pithily on the subject, in the context of the furore over racism allegations in English cricket.

A member of the House of Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, Damian Green, pitched a question to England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) chief executive Tom Harrison and colleagues in the following terms: "The ECB’s basic role is to promote the game. One of its other roles is to regulate the game.

"In a situation like this…isn’t there an inherent conflict of interest?"

Green went on: "Shouldn’t the regulatory function be in a different body than the promotional function? Because it is perfectly clear that in instances like this, they conflict – it is more difficult to sell cricket now than it was a couple of months ago because of this."

After listening to a response from the ECB executives asserting that there were advantages to having "everything under one roof" and explaining how processes existed to "keep the independence of the regulatory operation in place," Green plainly remained unconvinced.

"An independent panel that you appoint that then holds you to account seems a bit circular, to put it as politely as I can," he observed.

"I think that this might be a structural weakness in the process."

This cuts to the heart of an issue that, it seems to me, every governing body in the multibillion-dollar business that is sport in the 21^st century ought to be keeping under appraisal.

We could call it "Green’s principle" or "Damian’s dictum": are you satisfied that commercial considerations have no bearing on your handling of vital regulatory/governance issues such as athlete welfare?

And just as importantly: are there structures in place within the sport to ensure not only that this does not happen, but that it cannot fairly be perceived as even being within the bounds of plausibility?

This is particularly important for bodies whose main sports properties are moveable feasts, entailing the formation of partnerships with host authorities, often of several years’ duration.

Is it right for parties connected to such hosting partners to be treated differently on matters of regulatory principle – bearing in mind that considerable sums of money may hang on the smooth delivery of the events which these partners are hosting? I would have thought self-evidently not.

Consider now another hot topic of recent days – the well-being of Peng Shuai, the Chinese tennis player.

You do not need me to tell you that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) faced a storm of criticism over its initial reaction.

This led on Sunday to IOC President Thomas Bach holding a video call with the three-time Olympian and inviting her for dinner when he arrives in Beijing early next year.

Was this criticism fair?

Your views about this are likely to depend, I would suggest, on whether you believe the IOC’s approach was motivated genuinely and exclusively by concern for the athlete’s welfare, or whether you feel on the contrary that other matters, perhaps relating to China’s increasingly imminent staging of the Winter Olympics, may have crept into its calculations.

I do not know where the truth about this lies; I don’t see how anyone but the IOC itself really could know.

But I do think the IOC would find it easier to convince sceptics – and frankly to head off the sort of outcry that risks making Olympic sport a harder sell and inflicting further damage on its carefully-nurtured brand – if it were able to point to an internal body with real authority over athlete-welfare issues, and real independence, that had sat down, deliberated and determined the correct path to take.

I am unsure how many sports bodies would satisfy Damian Green when it comes to separation of their respective regulatory and promotional functions, but it would be less than surprising if the answer was "very few".

Money did not start gushing into sport in any major way until the late-1980s; most important contemporary sports bodies pre-date that by several decades.

But the time has now come for an audit, and for those who do not measure up to Damian’s dictum to restructure accordingly.

Until that happens, sport’s long-running calls for greater autonomy will continue to lose momentum.