When Wiggins won, Sky were 3rd most expensive team behind Trek & BMC. Obviously different today, but any team who'd won Tour several times would now be commanding more sponsorship money until they stop winning. It's exactly like British Cycling & Team GB over the last 12 years. Win more medals, get more funding, win less medals, get less funding. If you believe in Sky's marginal gains, then the money is going there, if you believe it's better riders, then the money is going there, otherwise you believe it's going somewhere else and influencing their success rate in grand tours. Personally, I'm not comfortable with the F1 analogy. F1 is purely about buying a better car to go faster. In cycling, buying a better bike doesn't work. You can buy better riders, but they've still got to pedal faster than they did in a previous team to make the difference and the bike won't achieve that.