Greek hegemonies were, almost by definition, short-lived for a series of reason.
An hypertrophied sense of civic identity (greek hegemonies rarely managed to dominate ethnic greek states such as Thessalia or Macedonia, but it's true as well on this regard) : being dominated by another major city was unbrearable, would it be Athenian or Spartan especially when this dominance wasn't accompanied by a Roman-like gradual absorption into a more composite state (as the Romano-Campanian state of the IInd century).
Eventually the lack of relational devices as you had in Rome (trough a legalist-political approach), Carthage (trough an economical-political approach) or even in Gaul (trough a "vassalic"-political approach) prevented to overcome efficiently politeis identitarian features.
You did have koinoi being established from time to time, but it tended to be local and relatively ponctual, varying between alliances and religious gatherings (and in the case of the Boeotian League, a case of a partially unsucessful "orbit cleaning" as Athens did managed in Attic peninsula), at least until the IIIrd century where isopoliteis (basically a federal state where previous entities tend to merge, rather than just federalize) appear out of it.
Persian influence was as well a real problem. The Great King certainly didn't want anyone in Greece to take the hegemon, and funded whoever fought it. There's barely a war or a peace in the Vth and IVth centuries, where the Achemenid Empire doesn't pops up openly or covertly, and it was crippling until Macedonian came out and made everyone agree or else.
Paradoxally, you didn't have a great obvious threat or ennemy to federate cities : it did happened later, when the clear Macedonian will of dominance was deemed an existential and political threat, and where two federal ensemble (the Achean and Etolian leagues) were particularily successful at unifying their immediate regions (respectively Peloponessos and Central Hellade). It does help that Lagids helped funding the heck out of these experiments.
But in IVth century Greece, it didn't existed as such : Persia was considered as a natural partner of Greek political life (another way to say Greek cities-states were dependent on Persian gold to affirm their independence and will to dominate), and Sparta would need to consider itself as a possible isopolity (meaning, gulp, possibly considering other Greeks as equals) which...well, it's not that going to work.
In fact, it appears that Sparta, while bend about establishing an hegemony, had put little tought why or what they were going to do with*, at the point the hegemony became for a time Lysander's own private hegemon rather than Sparta's, which provoked a traditionalist backleash and then even less clear idea what to do with the hegemony safe something something Sparta stronk something something we can't decently leave. Eventually, with the general weariness of Greece after the Peloponessian War, the aformentioned conditions and Sparta having no real strategical guideline...Well, it collapsed under its own weight.
*It's why that, for all its faults, an Attic hegemony would have been maybe more structurating, because Athenians pretty much knew what they wanted out of it.