Yes, the Olympics are a disaster, but it's still possible to watch them guilt-free

Watch the Rio Olympics. Enjoy the party. But don't forget the effects of the Games outside the stadium walls. 

That's David Goldblatt's advice as the 2016 Games get underway. 

Goldblatt recently published a book on the history of the Olympics. In it, he covers the journey of the modern Olympic movement from "a neo-Hellenic cult of the athletic amateur gentleman," to "part multinational, part international organization, part kind of franchisee of the greatest show on Earth." 

The question we have to ask ourselves, is: "Is the glory, is the beauty, worth the forced relocations, worth the grotesque missed opportunities, worth the kind of embedding of corruption in the public sector that the games seems to bring in its wake?"- David Goldblatt, "The Games: A Global History of  the Olympics"

There is great reason to love the event, Goldblatt says. He acknowledges that the big, splashy, athletic spectacle is fun to watch, and he admits to a naive optimism that has him believe that such global gatherings can be good for the world. 

But, he agrees there are many issues with how the Games are run, and with the IOC itself. And Rio, with its myriad problems, may be the moment when the bad outweighs the good. 

"The question we have to ask ourselves, is: 'Is the glory, is the beauty, worth the forced relocations, worth the grotesque missed opportunities, worth the kind of embedding of corruption in the public sector that the games seems to bring in its wake?' And I do wonder whether the legacy of Rio is going to be a tipping of the balance there, and we really do begin to think, 'maybe this is really not worth the candle.'" 

The full interview is available in the audio player above. The following portions have been edited for clarity and length.

Are we complicit in all of those problems when we sit back and watch the games and enjoy them? 

Well, you know, I'm sort of struggling with this, you know, are we not? In the case of Rio, I'm sort of thinking, well, the disaster has already happened, it makes no difference. I continue, in my naive and optimistic way, to think that sport actually can be made to stand for something more than just the moment that, you know, has the sort of moral, ethical, emotional, and inspirational capacity, so I'm hanging in there with the possibility of that. But as I say, one has to draw a balance sheet up, and I'm beginning to think that it is turning against that. 

The IOC says it does have a plan to make the Games better, that includes changing the bidding the process, trying to allow host countries to do things at lower costs — you document very well how costs have increased exponentially. Is there a better way to do the games? 

I think there must be a better way. I mean, really, Sochi or Rio, this can't be the pinnacle of Olympic achievement. I'm minded to think, if it's going to survive, we have to contemplate having the Games in more than one city, we need to have a bidding process, and a hosting process, that gives cities, rather than seven years of urban madness, at least 15 years to prepare, which is the case of Barcelona, which is the most successful form of urban redevelopment during an Olympics, where the Olympics came as the crowning glory of a period of change, rather than this "catalyst" that it's been touted as, which doesn't work. 

I think we need to probably have a trimmer Olympic Games. There are a number of sports, of which golf most definitely is at the top of the list, that need to come off of it. We need to have a bidding process where the people who make the decisions actually know something about urban development. The IOC in the end chose Rio —  they're the people who purportedly read the document that said, you know, 85 per cent od sewage will be treated by 2016. I'm not a sewage engineer, but I would not have been taking that pledge terribly seriously. So, there is a program of reform, there is a possibility of change, and above all an Olympics that actually makes a difference and leaves something behind, rather than debt. 

Can anyone honestly argue that the games have ever succeeded in the goal of fostering the betterment of humanity? 

It is actually setting the bar pretty high, isn't it, for what in the end is a sporting festival. I mean, I think there are unquestionably elements of it, there are real high points, for example, like the London 1948 games, where, you know, without being sentimental about it, the very possibility that people had managed to gather to play sport, in the wake of the firestorm of the Second World War, was a truly profound and moving thing. I think merely the display, actually just sort of putting out there the world in all its extraordinary diversity, is a really, really, powerful, symbolic moment. It's not pure, but the world's not pure. So, there are elements and there are moments, and I still think there is the possibility of more. But without some very serious change, I think it's probably doomed. 

How would you suggest our listeners take in the Rio games? Should they watch them at all? 

I think that everybody should watch as hard as they possibly can. I think everybody should engage critically with as much of a sense of humour as they can muster, with a necessary amount of cynicism, with an historical background and a political perspective. People should enjoy and love every moment of it, but don't forget to check out what's going on outside the stadium, and don't forget when this thing is over, the costs that have been paid and the mistakes that have been made in the making of the Games. But the party's on, it's time to watch the sport. 

Click the play button above to hear David Goldblatt's interview with guest host Stephen Quinn.