Yes, and the sponsors can't continue to sustain that kind of increase. Only a few throw-the-chequebook-at-every-problem teams like BMC will be able to continue to do so. You've seen what happens when even a well-funded and successful team has to go and find new sponsorship - High Road to the wall. Saying "globalisation means more money for everyone" is all well and good if it's evenly distributed, but it isn't, is it? Teams like FDJ or Euskaltel don't reap the benefits - what benefit is sponsor coverage in Australia or China for a company without much presence outside its home country, in races that aren't even broadcast at home in France/Spain? But they still have to pay ever increasing amounts on travelling to these races to continue to stay at the level that lets them access the races they need to do to keep the team afloat. And several historic races are forced to the wall because they can no longer attract a field because too many of the teams who would normally be at the centre of the race are forced to be off moonlighting in some far off land in a race with no history, no prestige and a dull parcours where they have no chance of winning.
Globalisation is a double edged sword, and while the sport shouldn't be closing its doors to those outside of its traditional home, in an economic situation like today's, a sport so completely dependent on sponsor income should be wary of wilfully alienating the base that has kept it alive, because if the bottom falls out of the globalisation drive, those will be the teams, riders and races that are expected to pick up the pieces.