Different power systems have different ways of impressing on old leaders that it is time to move on.

Democracies have elections; dictatorships, the law of the jungle whereby a pretender recognises that the old lion is not quite the force he was and chooses his moment to pounce; monarchies have the benefit of a succession policy that is generally crystal clear and the consolation for the old leader that his successor is a close family member; businesses have the stock market that passes cold, ruthless judgement.

Only in international sports bodies does it seem all but impossible to eject old leaders who don't want to go.

Yes, most sports leaders nowadays must subject themselves to regular elections; but the obscure and complex web of traded favours from which decisions tend to emerge in these often cumbersome, necessarily protocol-steeped multinational institutions means that an incumbent can be confident of outgunning any rival should he wish to run for another term.

The one recent example I can call to mind of an International Sports Federation (IF) President who was ousted in an election in spite of fighting to remain came in September 2013, when Pat McQuaid was beaten by challenger Brian Cookson for the leadership of the International Cycling Union (UCI).

Even here, the 24-18 margin of victory seemed tight, given widespread criticism over the way the sport was being run.

Pat McQuaid (left) is the rare example of an incumbent President forced out of office when he wanted to continue, losing the UCI election to Brian Cookson (right) in 2013
©AFP/Getty Images

Earlier the same year, Raphaël Martinetti was forced to resign as President of the then International Federation of Associated Wrestling Styles (FILA) - but this was in a moment of out-and-out crisis, after this most traditional of Olympic sports had been recommended for removal from the Games.

Sepp Blatter, 79-year-old President of FIFA, was quoted by one bookmaker in January as a prohibitive 1/16 favourite to retain the post he has held since 1998 in May's election, and yet world football's governing body has become a laughing-stock in a number of countries in recent years.

One piece of advice to anyone wishing to head an international sports body in future under present circumstances might be to do what is necessary to secure the endorsement of the incumbent and then be patient, very patient.

Perhaps this in part explains why, even in the most densely-populated FIFA Presidential election for at least four decades, those generally seen as the strongest candidates for the succession are not even running.

I appreciate that 70 is the new 50, that we are thankfully staying healthier for longer and all that, but sport simply has to display better governance when it comes to succession planning and ensuring that new blood is installed at the top at the right time.

If it doesn't, then recent developments might lead you to suppose we risk heading towards gerontocracy.

And these days sport is simply too significant a sector, both culturally and economically, to permit that to happen.

If you doubt what I am saying, consider the confusion at the Pan American Sports Organization (PASO) after 82-year-old President Mario Vázquez Raña died in harness, with no clear successor in sight and a statute review process, susceptible to influence the voting system for future elections, in full progress.

Mario Vázquez Raña died earlier this year while still President of the Pan American Sports Organization without leaving a succession plan in place ©Getty Images

That is perhaps an extreme example: the Presidency of the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), one of the most prominent IFs, is, after all, being contested at present by two very strong - and comparatively youthful - candidates, Sergey Bubka and Sebastian Coe, after the 81 year-old incumbent, Lamine Diack, decided to call it a day after nearly 15 years.

Even here, though, you have to wonder whether the sport might not be in better shape if the handover had happened four or five years ago.

Interestingly, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has stood firm, well firm-ish, against sport's gerontocratic tendencies, deciding as part of the Agenda 2020 reform process to stick with its age limit of 70 for those elected post-December 1999, while opening the door to up to five four-year extensions.

This doesn't strike me as ideal either, since it risks adding to that obscure web of favour-trading which can distort a genuinely democratic process by tempting individuals to allow factors unrelated to the matter in hand to influence their voting.

However, at least the IOC set its face against abolishing age limits in the way that another prominent IF, the International Swimming Federation (FINA), is currently proposing for its Bureau members.

I think the IOC now needs to start taking a more proactive role in encouraging others to follow its example, as part of the good governance agenda which is key to cementing an acceptable degree of autonomy from Government for sport to run its own affairs.

Let's face it, the Presidency of an international/global sports body is a highly demanding role, requiring incessant travel, exposure to abrupt time and climate changes and, in most cases, long working hours.

Even though more of us are being blessed with good health well into our eighth decade and beyond, once people hit 80, they can go downhill very quickly and unpredictably - especially men, and unsurprisingly, it is men who occupy the vast majority of these posts.

Sebastian Coe and Sergey Bubka represent the youthful face of international sports administration as they battle to replace Lamine Diack as President of the IAAF
©Getty Images

Purely for practical reasons, I think there is a strong argument for the IOC to advocate an age limit of 75, including for its own full members.

If the accumulated wisdom of an ageing incumbent is deemed too valuable to do without, then s/he can stay involved under an honorary title while forgoing those aspects of an international sports leader's job that make it so gruelling.

The IOC should also insist that it become standard practice within the Olympic Movement for bodies to spell out a clear, and clearly understood, succession policy once an incumbent President attains the age of 70.

The actual state of affairs within PASO could almost have been scripted by Gabriel García Márquez, one of that region's greatest writers: following the death of a powerful octogenarian leader, a 79-year-old (who looks admittedly as fit as a flea) is nominated to serve out the last year and a bit of the deceased President's term; the two men generally held to be frontrunners for the longer-term succession, meanwhile, are aged 73 and 74 respectively.

I completely understand why so many IF Presidents seem to desire to stay in their posts for as long as possible: who wouldn't want to be a globe-trotting potentate with wide-ranging powers in your chosen field, living in luxury and treated with reverence (at least to your face) wherever you go?

But sport is now much too important to permit its old leaders to outstay their welcome and effectiveness.

If individual organisations are incapable of exercising better judgement - and better governance - on this vital matter, then the IOC should use the levers at its disposal to promote better practice.

David Owen worked for 20 years for the Financial Times in the United States, Canada, France and the UK. He ended his FT career as sports editor after the 2006 World Cup and is now freelancing, including covering the 2008 Beijing Olympics, the 2010 World Cup and London 2012. Owen's Twitter feed can be accessed here