How do we devise a Test championship that satisfies everyone?

A Test championship? If there is a pub somewhere for retired ICC officials, then among its patrons will be told more than a few stories of the idea that got away. A dozen years ago, while Bangladesh flailed and Zimbabwe sank, a slew of international captains and now-retired greats came out in favour of an ICC plan for two (or more) divisions.

That plan never saw the light of day. In the interim there were not one but two attempts to implement a four-team knockout Test championship in England. Both were later cancelled in favour of the more lucrative Champions Trophy. Yet, so long as Test cricket fails to fulfill its potential, the idea of a Test championship will appear again, and so the ICC (at the urging of CEO David Richardson) is once again plotting a path towards a Test championship, and reform of bilateral structures.

The formation of world cricket's governing body itself, in 1909, was based around similar ideas: the Test triangular of 1912, and the creation of an ordered tour programme among the three members - England, Australia and South Africa. The two themes recur because they are central to the construction of international cricket. Interlinked and yet separate.

It is possible to have a bilateral structure, such as the Future Tours Programme (FTP), without a championship; and a championship without a bilateral structure. But for most fans - and administrators - sense of order calls for a more holistic approach. One that addresses the needs of all members, from the Big Three down to the smallest Affiliate, their players, broadcast partners, and fans.

The calls for reform have increased with the growing influence of domestic T20 cricket, and the subsequent overshadowing of many bilateral Test series. Among lower-ranked members, rankings alone cannot draw interest from either fans or players for short Test series involving little rewards. The financial imbalance caused by increased concentration of matches among the Big Three has worsened the problem, both for the other seven Full Members and for fans tiring of an Ashes contest every season. But calling for reform and agreeing to reform are different things.

The breadth of goals that need to be met by any reform programme works against its implementation. The proposed Test championship of 2013 and 2017 looked to a minimalist approach to reform, tacking a championship onto the existing bilateral programme in the (vain) hope that qualification would increase interest in the Test rankings. But a four-team tournament had too few benefits for lower-ranked members - who needed it most - and no real value for the Big Three, who did not need it at all. Perhaps mercifully, it was put aside, but the problems it ought to have solved remain.

A short tournament that would find a champion is a difficult proposition for Test cricket. As Test cricket is long, so will any tournament format be, especially as players will need ample rest between games. Bilateral fixtures that lie outside the championship will continue to struggle for meaning, while the prospect of empty neutral grounds will make marketing it as a showpiece event nigh impossible. Conversely, the assumption of bilateral fixtures into an all-encompassing league with promotion and relegation has its own potential problems. Popular and profitable marquee fixtures such as the Ashes could disappear, were Australia and England to find themselves in separate tiers. Any team relegated to a lower division could see a marked decline in fixture quality, and potential financial armageddon from losses in hosting revenue.

Between those extremes lie multiple options, and many conflicting goals. Both football, through the World Cup qualifiers, and tennis, via the multi-tiered Davis Cup knockout, are played home and away, combining opportunities for all nations with an increasingly elite competitive structure. But both also exist without the constraints of cricket's climatic restrictions or of its historic predilection for elitism. A tournament with multiple members playing within their local seasons will restrict teams to perhaps six matches at home per year, substantially restricting the available options.

None of these problems are insurmountable, but they do require choices to be made, and in this, the global rush of writers, fans and administrators to suggest championship- and bilateral formats has been well meaning but lacking. There are many aims that a reformed structure could achieve, but also many that conflict. As we have seen in the limited-overs formats, the opportunity for smaller teams to play the best must be balanced against the competitiveness of the competition. Expansion of Test cricket to new members - so vital to its future - conflicts with the protection of marquee fixtures, and the financial benefits of those matches. A league that provides the clearest measure of the best team is less entertaining than a competition that builds to a champion. And any structure must choose how frequently it wants to designate a champion, and how quickly teams move between tiers as they play well or badly.

Perhaps most importantly, for the ICC's smaller members - which in reality, include all but the largest three - a reformed structure must be financially viable. At present much of the income of its members come either via the ICC or via the hosting of India, and to a lesser extent England, to whose fans they can sell their home TV rights. A knee-jerk reaction would be to reject any model that threatened those tours. Trust among members has never been high - seen not least in their failure to maintain solidarity during the Big Three reform process - but in this they may need to do so. In most sports, the rights to lucrative fixtures are packaged with those less so, then distributed - not necessarily equally - in a way that makes it less important who hosts what match. As the last decade under the FTP has shown, a structure that must maintain a certain cycle of fixtures will quickly clog up, making expansion impossible, and a championship nearly so. Reform, far from being a matter of obstinacy and greed, is also a creative and politically charged challenge. But reform has to happen.

The challenge for members engaged at the ICC is to balance the various aims, taking into consideration the views of stakeholders, including broadcasters, players, and hopefully fans who have to watch it.

Now is also the time for fans to make those views heard. I have constructed a survey that asks readers to rate what is most important to them, for submission to the ICC at their next meeting. The views of fans matter. At a commercial level, a Test championship that engages fan interest has the potential to make a lot more money than the bilateral mess cricket has now. If successful, the financial problems that plague most members will become a little less problematic.

However, in the past, the scramble for fixtures that categorised negotiations over the FTP stymied and stalled the necessary reforms. This time it might be different - but the administrators of a decade ago would likely have said the same thing.