Originally Posted by DirtyWorks
Hold on. First we have to know what the formula is before you go knocking down my crackpot theory. I could be completely wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. Do you have any specific information regarding the distribution formula?
Handily enough, yes, a bit.
Sports are split into 4 groups. Athletics is alone in group 1 - it gets most, about twice as much as everyone else. In this cycle they hope for around $35m
Cycling is in group 2, with swimming, gymnastics and a few others. they all get the same as each other, in 2012 case hopefully around $18 each. Group 3 - $13m, group 4 $11m.
Your place in the order is decided by, and the monies distributed by the Association of International Olympic Sports Federations, which is made up of members of all the currently 26 sports.
Neither the IOC nor the BOA have any say in that distribution whatsoever, except for the IOC handing over the 'block grant' in the first place.
A slight bump for GB viewing figures makes absolutely no difference to this mechanism (and given Beijing track success, cycling is already going to be the hottest ticket in town; Sky won't alter that)
Now how the AISOF determines the share per group I don't know, hence my uncertainty on the formula - but I do know it's decided as a group - individual sports, bar arguably athletics as the entirety of Group 1, are not catered for separately.
Are we happy now?
I see Pat endlessly talking about the "growth" of cycling when it's just not happening globally. Which is why I am lead to believe that there is a viewership component to how that money is distributed. What did the Sky fairy tale do for cycling during the Olympics? Boost viewership.
You seriously think after the Hoy driven Beijing performance, Sky were needed to boost viewership?