Rather than focus on preparations for the event which closed yesterday in Wrocław, they got bogged down in a lengthy tête-à-tête over who - the Executive Committee or the wider membership - should exercise the right to select future hosts of the World Games.

It was a debate best described as "dry" and, understandably, most of the other journalists present were soon nodding off beside me. But, having developed a peculiar interest in such concepts when studying politics at school, I was engrossed.

Leading the campaign for a shift away from Board-domination was, my notes recall, Rafael Santonja, President of the International Federation of BodyBuilding and Fitness. He concluded a passionate address with a quote from former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill: "Democracy is the worst form of Government, except for all the others we attempt from time to time..."

It was not quite fighting - or flexing muscles - on the beaches, but the waves on nearby Lake Geneva were rippling with early-morning tension.

It was not enough, however, to fluster an opposition rallied by the wily IWGA vice-president Max Bishop. "Thank you for mentioning that great statesman from my country," he drolly responded. "Of course, you can use a Churchill quote to justify just about anything. He also said that the ‘best conversation against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter’…”

Santonja’s proposals proved unsuccessful and the status quo of the IWGA Board selecting host cities continued.

The exchange, however, illustrated the fascinating balance between Executive and Legislative power which exists in all political, and indeed sporting, systems.

In national politics, this can be determined by all manner of factors. In a country like Britain, it depends on the Parliamentary strength of the ruling party. If they have a large majority, then it is very hard to block anything they propose. Yet if, like now under a battered and bruised Theresa May, they have a very small or non-existent majority, then the whims of every Member of Parliament are key. Other factors can also be significant, including the personal ability of the respective Prime Minister or President or whether the Executive is united or a coalition of different factions.

I was reminded of this by the remarkable situation currently unfolding within the International Boxing Association (AIBA). Taiwanese President C K Wu is now facing opposition from 13 of 15 Executive Committee members present for last week’s meeting in Moscow. This included all five vice-presidents, while the remaining two abstained.

Wu, however, refused to stand down following a vote of no confidence on the grounds that only the wider Congress have the right to elect or remove him. He instead convened an Extraordinary General Assembly in "three months time". This is correct, according to their Statutes, although it does seem amazing that a President can continue, despite not a single member of the Board supporting him.

A frantic period of pork-barrel politics will now presumably begin as both sides offer incentives to solicit Member Federation support. Other external influences, including the International Olympic Committee (IOC) of which Wu is an Executive Board member, could also be important.

There are examples of a powerful Board in sport in comparison to a relatively weak President.

FIFA in its infamous "heyday" under Sepp Blatter, for instance. Then, Blatter was the figurehead at the top of the organisation but appeared to have little day-to-day influence over the activities of Jack Warner, Mohamed bin Hammam and various other now-disgraced officials. It is of course this group, rather than the wider Congress, who selected host cities.

But this is unusual and, if the FIFA example is anything to go by, not desirable.

At the other end of the spectrum, you have Executive Committees which are completely dominated by the whims of a President and key administrative allies. The Olympic Council of Asia (OCA), for instance, allows media to attend Board meetings, which effectively shows how insignificant they are. I can think of several International Federations run by longstanding Presidents which appear rather similar.

Most other sports bodies sit somewhere in the middle.

The IOC system historically consists of a powerful membership responsible for selecting host cities and other key decisions. Even in his pomp, former IOC President Juan Antonio Samaranch was unable to always get his way in host city votes and current post-holder Thomas Bach so nearly came unstuck in 2015 when Beijing beat Almaty by just four votes in the race to host the 2022 Winter Olympics and Paralympics.

This, though, is now changing. It is the IOC Executive Board rather than the Session which is making all the decisions to award the 2024 and 2028 Olympics and, despite ostensibly "increasing IOC member involvement" in the 2026 winter race, a marked shift has taken place away from meaningful votes. 

IOC members have also had little influence other than rubber-stamping power in other key decisions such as on Russian doping sanctions. With no decision on Russian participation at Pyeongchang 2018 expected until October, so after the previous month’s IOC Session in Lima, members are also not expected to have much control over this issue.

But do the IOC Executive Board actually have much real power either?

It appears to increasingly be becoming a ratifying body signing off proposals made by Bach and the administrative staff. Did they actually play much role in the 2024 and 2028 process or was it foisted down from above?

When deciding how to sanction Russia last year, the two main internal critics of IOC policy were Britain’s former vice-president Sir Craig Reedie and Germany’s ex-Athletes’ Commission chair Claudia Bokel. (Sir Craig, incidentally, as President of the World Anti-Doping Agency, was not allowed to vote on their eventual "unanimous" decision not to hand Russia a blanket ban due to an alleged conflict of interest, while Bokel abstained.)

Both have since left the Executive Board. Bokel has been replaced by American Angela Ruggiero, who seems very conflicted by the need to keep IOC leaders on side as Los Angeles bids for the 2024 Olympics, while new vice-presidents Uğur Erdener of Turkey and Juan Antonio Samaranch of Spain have shown nothing but unswerving loyalty to Bach so far.

Australia’s John Coates, another of the vice-presidents and the number one ally of Bach, is about the only figure who is now considered independently powerful, but even he reaches the end of his term in September. United States’ Anita DeFrantz is strongly favoured to replace him. She is yet to respond to our attempt to find out what she hopes to bring to the role.

Five candidates have since emerged for two other vacant Board positions. IOC leaders are making it clear behind the scenes that they favour Nigeria’s Habu Gumel and Aruba’s Nicole Hoevertsz over the other three: Denis Oswald of Switzerland, Pal Schmitt of Hungary and Ivan Dibos of Peru.

Both, I think it is fair to say, can be described as IOC and Bach loyalists. They are also helped by the need to find an African member and increase female representation. This is not meant as a criticism of either figure. I do not know much about Gumel but Hoevertsz appears a longstanding and enthusiastic sports official who deserves the opportunity to progress. 

I also feel, though, that the IOC would benefit from having someone on the Board who may offer a different perspective. Someone, for instance, like Oswald, an official of vast experience who is spearheading their Russian doping investigations and felt brave enough to speak out in opposition to the proposal to jointly award the 2024 and 2028 Olympics without changing the Olympic Charter - although he did ultimately vote in favour. He also clashed with Bach when standing against him in 2013 to become IOC President. 

During the International Table Tennis Federation Annual General Meeting in May, Germany’s Thomas Weikert announced his preferred list of Executive Committee colleagues on the day of the vote. Every single one was successfully elected, even though Weikert himself only narrowly defeated Presidential opponent Jean-Michel Saive by 118 votes to 90. It followed an election campaign dominated by rumours of "incentives" being made by both sides to members in return for voting in a particular way.

I understand why a President would want a Board consisting of allies and, as in politics, a united and effective Executive Board can be the best way to force through much-needed change. But, at the same time, it is not good if all criticism is sidelined and all decisions are taking unilaterally without any opposition. Individuals should surely feel able to oppose decisions without risking their personal positions.

A balance must therefore be found, particularly if the President is then making decisions which turn out to be flawed.

This brings us back to Wu, who is fighting off allegations that he is responsible for decisions which have imperiled the finances of AIBA. Should the Executive Committee and Congress have done more to oppose him sooner or were they hamstrung by the system in which they were operating? Are they only acting now for personal reasons in an attempted coup d’etat to remove Wu?

Answers to all of these questions should emerge over the next three months.

Of course, the one constituency not mentioned here is the athletes, coaches and spectators.

All of whom were resolutely ignored by the International Swimming Federation last week when they voted near-unanimously for a name change from synchronised to artistic swimming in the face of huge grass roots opposition.

To what extent will these same groups be affected by the political bickering of AIBA bosses? Athletes, for all the lip service and setting up of Commissions, are still not represented properly in many sporting bodies. In boxing's case, they certainly appeared to be overlooked during several appalling judging decisions at Rio 2016.

As Churchill made clear, there is no right and wrong answer when assessing governance structures. 

Clearly this is one of many areas which sport must consider when continuing its slow and meandering path towards genuine reform.