DISAPPOINTMENT at Jamaica’s failure to reach the 2026 FIFA World Cup in the United States, Mexico, and Canada wasn’t only about lost opportunity to boost reputation as a football-playing country. Very importantly, it was about the loss of what would have been a financial windfall.

Had Jamaica qualified, prize money would have amounted to a minimum US$10.5 million — just for being there — with increases rewarding further advance. With that money, the Jamaica Football Federation (JFF) could have cleared its debts, appropriately rewarded players, and confidently launched itself into much-needed development programmes.

Also, of course, qualification would have significantly encouraged private and public sector support for football. For, as we all know, potential sponsors adore winners. Quite the contrary for others.

But that’s water under the bridge. Now, the JFF and many others in the impoverished global south are scrambling to raise funds for projects which must be carried through somehow. That reality, we suspect, largely explains JFF President Mr Michael Ricketts’ current vocal support for FIFA President Mr Gianni Infantino after the latter’s disastrous aborted initiative to raise money. It followed what’s being described as the most profitable World Cup ever.

Under that plan Mr Infantino 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. The strategy would have involved selling up to 21 per cent to private equity investors to raise US$4.2 billion upfront. The sweetener for FIFA member countries was the possibility of individual associations benefiting by up to US$40 million for development programmes.

Outrage led by the rich, powerful Union of European Football Associations (UEFA), supported by other confederations including the Caribbean, Central and North America (Concacaf), and Asia at what was seen as a barefaced attempt to sell out football, triggered speedy withdrawal of the proposal.

But as was clear from the beginning, opposition to the initiative from the global south was more about the oddly secretive way in which it came about than anything else. As Mr Ricketts said at the time, his big problem was not the initiative but its “non-transparent” manner.

So now, Mr Ricketts and many others seem inclined to support Mr Infantino’s continuation as FIFA president after elections due next March. Mr Ricketts is also pushing back against UEFA — which wants Mr Infantino out — as simply serving its own ends. He told this newspaper recently: “Infantino might have made a mistake, but the intentions were to help Caribbean [and] smaller countries. Can you imagine Jamaica getting US$40 million to invest in football? Can you imagine the difference that would make in four or five years?”

Clearly, a major difficulty for Mr Ricketts and other like-minded leaders in this region is that Concacaf President Mr Victor Montagliani, who has bitterly criticised Mr Infantino for allegedly violating “trust”, is reportedly being urged to challenge for the presidency.

Mr Montagliani, a Canadian, is also a FIFA vice-president. The period for nominations to challenge for the FIFA presidency will close November 18. Unsurprisingly, Mr Ricketts wants rapprochement.

He told this newspaper, in part, “What we really want is for both… Infantino and Montagliani, to come together and put the differences aside… and let’s move on with the growth of football…”

The rest of us will be watching with great interest.