What is the point of the Commonwealth Games?
With all the big names shunning Delhi 2010, chaotic organisation and the Ryder Cup stealing the limelight this weekend the next few days could be even more uncomfortable for the Commonwealth Games than the build-up has been.
Mind you after last week's publicity, organisers might appreciate staying below the radar.
Even local people have been reluctant to turn out for a Games which was supposed to confirm modern India's emergence as a global super power.
Verifying the numbers is tricky but the country's tourism minister claimed on Thursday that only 50-60% of the 1.7 million tickets for the Games have been sold. Another report on Friday morning suggested the actual number of tickets sold was nearer 200,000 and tickets remain available for the showpiece event - Sunday's opening ceremony.
And it is beyond belief that the Indian cricket board chose the next two weeks to stage two Test matches against Australia, the first game getting under way in Mohali on Friday.
But ever since their inception back in 1930 the Commonwealth Games has always been a quirky, distant relative to the other mega events on the international sporting stage.
The self styled "Friendly Games" have never tried to compete with the World Cup or the Olympics. They are different and, despite all the problems, they do still matter.
In fact, they may even offer a refreshing antidote to the overly commercial world of other events - a chance for athletes from sports like netball and squash to get a bit of publicity and rub shoulders with better known competitors from athletics and swimming.
Apart from the Olympics, there are few genuinely international multi-sports events, which, according to the athletes, makes them special. More importantly, the chance to experience an athletes' village and spend time with sportsmen and women from other disciplines is invaluable preparation for the Olympic stage.
And what about the value of the Commonwealth itself? It may be seen as a bit out of date but 71 different countries will be here in Delhi and for many of the smaller nations it is an invaluable opportunity to express their national identity.
Old sporting rivalries such as England against Scotland and Australia versus New Zealand also add a bit of extra spice to proceedings.
On a purely sporting level, it does lack appeal. That is inescapable.
In an interview with the BBC on Thursday Mike Fennell, the softly spoken and amiable president of the Commonwealth Games Federation, conceded that Delhi's problems had damaged the image of the brand.
But he added that there were many positives which were being ignored in the rush to condemn the Indian organisers and that there was still a place for the event. The legacy argument, he said, was also a major factor.
Delhi has spent more than £1.5billion on staging these Games and regenerating the city with a new metro, new airport terminal and new roads. They might be late for these Games but the decision to award the event to the Indian capital seven years ago ensured they have been delivered much quicker than they otherwise might have been.
Manchester was transformed by the 2002 Games and Glasgow's plan is to use the 2014 edition to rebrand the Scottish city's run-down image.
John Scott, the chief executive of Glasgow 2014, believes the history of the Games and its unique ability to showcase such a different range of sports still make it special. Scottish tax-payers helping to pick up the majority of the £454 million bill will no doubt be relieved to hear that.
But to finish on a positive note, it has to be stated that Delhi has been written off before these Games have even started. India may yet surprise us by putting on a successful Commonwealth Games and at the same time give a new lease of life to an event which is in danger of becoming a bit of an anachronism.