Ronald Thwaites, the Central Kingston member of parliament, was clearly being hyperbolic with his characterisation of official promises of returns from Jamaica's investment as one of the hosts for the 2007 Cricket World Cup.

Obviously, the financial outcomes were not what were projected. But it would have been the most wilfully naive, or deliberately ignorant, who would have expected big cash returns to the Caribbean countries that built stadia and upgraded infrastructure so they could be hosts.

In that regard, it is an insult to the intelligence of the former Jamaican prime minister, Mr P.J. Patterson, and other leaders of the Caribbean Community (Caricom) to suggest - as Dr Omar Davies, Mr Patterson's finance minister, did this week - that they were almost deceived into believing that their national treasuries would not have to bear the brunt of, if not all, the costs.

Political cynicism

The Caricom leaders went into the project with their eyes wide open and, in Mr Patterson's case, we believe, partially fixed on the general election that his People's National Party knew it had to face in 2007. A successful international cricket competition, especially if the West Indies did well and Jamaicans shone, would have provided a feel-good factor ahead of the elections. That's the political cynicism.

But Mr Patterson also felt that hosting the World Cup was inherently good for the Caribbean. He subscribed to the fundamental argument of proponents of Jamaica's participation that it is the legacy of the returns of the tournament which would be most significant. And this, essentially, is what Mr Thwaites and other critics have to assess to determine whether the money spent on the World Cup was, as the Central Kingston MP claimed to have been promised, "the finest investment that we could ever make with public funds".

It is a conversation worth having. The request by Jamaica Cricket 2007, the company set up to manage tthe domestic preparation of the tournament, to write off nearly US$4 million of the US$8 million that was advanced to it, provides a good launch pad for a hopefully non-emotive review.

Jamaica spent nearly US$100 million, the great bulk of the money going towards upgrading the historic Sabina Park cricket ground and for building a multi-purpose stadium in Trelawny. Some roads, drains and other infrastructure were also repaired.

Legitimate questions

There are legitimate questions to be asked, including whether these were the best investments and what opportunity costs may be inferred from those decisions, compared to whatever value they may bring. The proposal of the University of Technology to integrate the Trelawny stadium into its planned western campus as part of its value-added sport development programme can, for instance, be taken into account.

Mr Thwaites and Parliament's Public Accounts Committee, where the matter was raised this week, may wish to determine from Jamaica Trade and Investment (JTI) whether the country did indeed receive the projected exposure from being a host to the tournament, and whether it had the expected impact on foreign direct investment. Has JTI followed through on its post-tournament programme?

It is far too glib by half, we feel, to do a chest-thumping 'I-told-you-so' whoop on the basis of the request by Jamaica Cricket 2007. Let's get some rigour.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.