Its tentacles stretch into every country but it answers to no government. Incessantly publicised and yet secretively controlled, it generates billions but pays little tax. Although it trumpets timeless ideals, it stimulates futuristic ways of cheating. Nominally open to all, it is ruthlessly dominated by a few big countries.
This description applies not to some global corporation, nor to a drug cartel, but to the international Olympic "movement". Enjoy the Games if you will, but at least be aware of the real nature of this monster that stirs from its cave every four years - or every two, if you include the smaller Winter Olympics.
It all started so well. Over a century ago, when Pierre de Coubertin set out to revive the ancient Greek event in order "to ennoble and strengthen sport" he said his project was rooted in "the concept of a strong physical culture based in part on the spirit of chivalry … and in part on the aesthetic idea … of what is beautiful and graceful".
Fair enough. There's no denying the appeal of that, and of international sport in general. But de Coubertin's idealism has degenerated sadly.
As London prepares for the Games of the XXX Olympiad from July 27 to August 12, we see that the cost of these Games, first announced at £2.37 billion (Dh13.5 billion) back in 2005, will surpass £11 billion (Dh63 billion) for the public sector alone, reaching perhaps £24 billion (Dh138 billion) total.
We see the 100-plus members of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) - the "lords of the rings" - living the jet-set good life, serially wooed by innocent, eager cities. We see London cabbies protesting that lanes on major streets have been reserved for athletes, officials and sponsors.
We see that the company hired to provide security in London has failed so badly that 3,500 soldiers must be used. We see surface-to-air missiles deployed on rooftops. We see an incalculable environmental footprint.
We see national sport and fitness budgets, in many lands, sucked up by a few elite athletes while countless children, who could be truly amateur athletes if they had facilities and coaches, grow obese instead.
We see athletes lining up lucrative endorsement deals - although these may be withdrawn from those caught using illicit or "designer" drugs to improve performance. We see that these will be the most-tested Games ever, but that the World Anti-Doping Authority is always a test or two behind in the chemical arms race with the cheats.
We see that several British charities lost their funding, from UK lottery revenue, because the money was diverted to the Games. We see reports of Olympic officials selling tickets on to the black market. We see Olympic officials acknowledging that "betting-related corruption" - fixing the results, in plain English - is as big a threat to the Olympics as doping.
We see 150,000 condoms contributed free, to the Olympic Village (of 18,000 athletes and officials) by a manufacturer eager for publicity. We see that the Village dining hall includes a McDonald's (being a "worldwide partner" has its perks, after all).
We see that medal counts are tied closely to national GDP figures and government funding. Canada's subsidy programme, for example, is crassly - and too literally - called Own the Podium.
There is, in short, a phoniness at the heart of the Olympics. Why are 28,000 journalists and media technicians registered - three per athlete? This horde will report on a few truly popular sports but mainly on two weeks of taekwondo, weightlifting, archery, fencing, canoe slalom and the like, all of which will then subside into obscurity until 2016. (Quick: who won the fencing medals in Beijing? I thought not.)
It's easy to understand why we are being sold this nonsense: there's big money in it for multinational corporations. They can reach their markets in more than 200 countries all at once via the Olympics, and so are pouring billions into sponsorships, advertising and other efforts to cash in. That explains the sophisticated drumbeat to whip up public excitement. Then there's merchandising: the IOC's "brand police" guard its trademarks and the word "Olympic" because they are so lucrative.
What is harder to understand is why we buy into it. Parking ourselves in front of the television to get excited about young people we've never heard of before and may never hear of again, in sports we don't care about except for these two weeks every 208, just doesn't make sense. De Coubertin, you have to think, would be appalled by it all.
