It seems that in the last 18 months or so, sport has been on the front page of the papers far too often, its integrity having been repeatedly brought into question. 

Credibility in sports governance has reached an all-time low and it is time for those who run sport to put sport back on track by creating some independent structures to ensure transparency, democracy and accountability in sporting organisations.

But why is it that sport seems to have reached a breaking point? What has tipped it over the edge? Sport has always had a privileged place in society - the favoured, spoilt child offered special allowances, too easily forgiven and allowed to bask brazenly in its commercial glory, scarcely accountable to its constituent stakeholders.

People are quick to say that "sport is a business", but sometimes slow to realise that it is fundamentally different to regular business because of the unique role it has in society. Sport does not play by the same rules as business and is afforded at the least, special treatment, and at the most, impunity (usually dressed up in terms such as “autonomy” or “specificity”), as well as crucially, the right to self-regulate and self-govern. 

Sport has reached breaking point because it is abusing this privilege. Civil society and some Governments are beginning to rightly ask the question: does sport have the regulation, capacity and will to regulate itself? 

Many Governments, along with sport and interested organisations, are exploring ways in which the integrity of sports governance can be brought up to modern standards.

It is interesting that in the mid-1990s, sport was facing a similar crisis regarding the widespread use of performance enhancing drugs for competitive advantage. In fact, strong arguments were voiced at the time to allow "the right kind of performance enhancement" in sport. 

As an antidote, the World Anti-Doping Code was penned and I along with a number of Sports Ministers encouraged our national sports organisations to sign up and obliged them through the public funding they were receiving to implement national structures to facilitate the policing thereof. 

With the help of funding from Government and the International Olympic Committee (IOC), the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) was set up as an initiative led by the IOC and supported by Governments.

With the power and autonomy to take action and despite some bumps along the road, WADA is still a largely respected regulator, monitoring, overseeing and policing a Code designed to keep sport clean from the use of performance enhancing drugs.

This being said, in recent times, the power of WADA to implement the Code has been brought into question amid a split in the Olympic Movement on how to implement the recommendations of the McLaren Report, and the question now being asked is whether WADA should be made truly independent and not accountable to any vested interest. Central to that question is the importance of independent funding.

The old saying of "he who pays the piper calls the tune" still rings true.

So is it time to explore how an international integrity fund for sports governance could be set up and allow sports regulation to become truly implemented?

The same question is at the heart of the debate about an international regulation for sport integrity. The need for sport to have some form of independent international regulation, similar to the emerging Sports Integrity Global Alliance (SIGA), is now without question but what is clear is that as in the case of WADA it should be a truly independent regulator and must be led by all sport with support from Government and Government institutions as well as other stakeholder groups, particularly the commercial sector.

What the debate on regulation is throwing up is the role of the private sector, and whether it is in the enlightened self-interest of sport and its commercial partners to keep sport clean, well regulated and free from corrupt influence, and if so how could this be delivered?

Estimates suggest that in 2015, sport generated $35 billion (£27 billion/€31 billion) from sports media rights. Accordingly, sponsors and broadcasters investing in the acquisition of television and other rights attached to major sporting events should have a vested interest in promoting a parallel corporate social responsibility agenda, and so should be open to making a small contribution to a sports integrity fund.

If all such companies were on board and all deals were covered, a levy of less than 0.1 per cent would be sufficient to fund a $30 million (£23 million/€27 million) organisation - the approximate size of WADA’s annual budget - for a year.

As an alternative, if those broadcasters and sponsors were to put the onus on sport to guarantee clean sport as a condition of receiving their money, this tiny proportion could be put aside by the sports organisations to fund such a body.

Governments could also play their part by allowing contribution to sports regulation to be tax deductible.

Even the sports betting industry who are profiting from sport could be obliged by Government to match this amount of funding.

In order to have confidence in and respect for sport’s autonomy, we need a regulatory system that is run and delivered by all sport and supported by its constituent stakeholder parties. But it needs to be free from cronyism and anachronistic structures, to adapt to the ever emerging complexities of sport, and to be wholly independent, both financially and politically.

The debate about a more independent WADA and the creation of a SIGA like organisation to deliver clean sport are high on the political agenda and sport needs to lead that debate. It has both the power and the financial capacity but, crucially, does it have the will to find a solution, and avoid political imposition? This should be the way forward.

Just like with WADA in the 1990s, the time is now to support the creation of truly independent regulation and usher in a new era for sports governance.

It’s time we kept sport on the back page of the papers once and for all.

Liam Morgan is away