The articles always make a persuasive case. So, why hasn't it happened yet? What is the crucial detail that these articles always leave out?
This article makes the point. The fungus has no quick propogation methods, as it's only spread by moving infected earth: it's simply very resilient once established.
So the last X years have been a slow motion "We know this is a problem. It's becoming a bigger and bigger problem. Eventually it will be an insurmountable problem."
The article also notes that there were a substantial number of "flex years" the last time this happened, as deforestation was used to open up new, un-infected land for banana cultivation.
In summary: it's like the IPv6 problem.
We knew it was coming, but resource exhaustion takes time.
Biology, ecology, geology, and cosmology all work on their own timescales. :)
Still has to go through all the usual trials, etc, before it can be grown commercially, and then there'd be questions over GM regulation, market-acceptance, and whether the crop is productive and easy to manage for commercial growers to sort. (Usual productisation questions for a new crop variety to have to jump through.)
Nature exploits opportunities. If we're still planting monocultures of cloned plants (plus whatever genes), that's still going to be enticing prey. See: Roundup resistant weeds.
And life, as they say, finds a way.
The only thing you get from this is annoying humans, which doesn't sound a very good evolutionary strategy (second only to being used in Chinese traditional medicine)
I honestly think this story recurs so often not because it's comparatively important, but because it's a grabby hook of a story and because James Dale of the Queensland University of Technology (who is quoted in every instance of the story I've seen) has an incredibly tenacious publicist.