Money, some say, is the root of all evil. It’s also said that it makes the mare run.

For sure, money is at the root of the current furore afflicting football with Mr Gianni Infantino, president of the global game’s governing body, FIFA, at the very centre.

It’s been triggered by Mr Infantino’s recent proposal of a FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE).

As explained in the Friday edition of this newspaper, under the plan, FIFA aimed to create a private commercial entity valued at US$20 billion to handle broadcasting, ticketing, sponsorship, and hospitality rights for competitions like the World Cup.

Developed alongside JP Morgan (a giant global financial services company), the strategy involves selling up to 21 per cent to private equity investors — led by Mr Joshua Kushner’s firm, Thrive Eternal — to raise US$4.2 billion in upfront capital. Mr Kushner is the brother of US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Mr Jared Kushner.

To win over member nations, FIFA offered to increase baseline development funding from US$10 million to US$20 million per nation for the 2027-2030 cycle. Associations could also access an additional US$20 million upfront through a new FIFA Fast Forward Programme for infrastructure, putting up to US$40 million on the table per country ahead of a September 19 deadline.

Crucially, member nations declining support would be restricted to only receiving the baseline of US$10 million. On the face of it, the proposal would be a spectacular windfall for poor FIFA member nations such as Jamaica which are struggling to make ends meet.

In Jamaica’s case, failure to reach the 2026 FIFA World Cup thereby losing out on a minimum US$10.5 million in reward money, led to additional impoverishment for football.

That harsh truth was recently explained to this newspaper by Jamaica Football Federation President Mr Michael Ricketts.

In other circumstances, perhaps, poor football-playing countries may have wholeheartedly embraced Mr Infantino’s plan. But fallout and fierce condemnation from the rich, powerful Union of European Football Associations (UEFA), which rejected it as a sell-out of football, led to Mr Infantino scrapping the plan late Friday evening.

“Having ​listened carefully to all the views, it has ​become clear ​that the project has created ‌divisions of a nature that, regardless of the level of ​support, ​are no longer in the interest ​of the objective ​set out in the first place,” Mr Infantino said.

“Our purpose has always been, and will always be, to unite and improve… As a result, this proposal will not proceed,” he added.

It appears that, for whatever reason, the FIFA head failed to consult with member federations, countries, and even his own executive. Indeed, Mr Ricketts appeared to suggest on RJR’s Beyond the Headlines, Friday, that Jamaica and the Caribbean Football Union were opposing the Infantino’s proposal largely because of perceived absence of transparency.

A day earlier he reportedly told Nationwide Sports that, while at a personal level he found nothing wrong with the proposal, his “big problem” was the “non-transparent way in which it was done. We would’ve spent so much time together with the leadership of FIFA before, during, and after the World Cup, and we were never apprised of these discussions…”

Extreme dissatisfaction with Mr Infantino’s seeming “non-transparent” approach underlines statements we have heard from the Asian confederation and from our Caribbean, Central and North American region, Concacaf.

It adds weight to a spiralling anti-Infantino campaign, driven by fallout within the FIFA executive itself and UEFA’s insistence that, had he stuck to the proposal, UEFA would boycott future FIFA competitions.

A UEFA boycott would have been seismic, since global football without Europe would fall way short of the money spinner it now is.

Whatever happens from here, we wouldn’t be surprised if trade-offs lead to a far better deal than now exists for impoverished football-playing countries in the Caribbean, Americas, Asia, Africa, and Oceania.