Sponsors already pay top dollar for pro cycling, in comparison to other advertising avenues and sports. And they get great value from cycling. Cycling gets huge viewership world wide, so that is not our problem. we do quite well on that front.
The biggest threat to sponsors is a very subtle one: Teams like Katusha, Astana, or BMC that are not backed by a sponsor, but by a wealthy individual or governments. These teams tend to have "unlimited" budgets, which hurts other teams that rely on corporate sponsorship for funding. Why? Because they raise the cost of having a #1 type team to the point it becomes uneconomical to sponsor cycling for a publicly owned company that has to answer to shareholders. Then their ad dollars go elsewhere.
This is easy to fix, however! Simply put overall budget/payroll caps in place. I'm a big believer in raising the minimum wage in cycling, but having firm total budget cap for all teams. That way fairness is applied to the business of cycling, not just the anti-doping aspect.