I don’t know if the story is true or not; an IOC official told me it was speculation and, as such, would not be commented on.

But it does strike me as plausible.

When I interviewed Timo Lumme, the IOC’s managing director for television and marketing services, in Malaysia recently, he gave me to understand that “if things go well”, TOP might generate $2 billion (£1.3 billion/€1.8 million) in cash and value-in-kind goods and services over the Olympic cycle culminating with the Tokyo 2020 Games.

That would be a near doubling in value from the present quadrennium taking us up to Rio 2016.

As I wrote at the time, such a jump “implies that more new deals may be in prospect”.

Whether it would be an altogether good idea is another matter.

“Professional services”, in case your imagination is getting the better of you, is the jazzy, public relations-speak label for what you and I would once have referred to as accountancy.

Admittedly, this is probably too narrow a term for the myriad functions these days performed by the world-leading, indeed globe-spanning, professional services practitioners.

Nonetheless, it points to the first potential problem with taking on such a body as a top-tier sponsor.

One of the things accountants do is audit financial accounts, including those produced by the IOC.

One of the prime requirements of an auditor is that s/he be independent, and demonstrably so. 

Could a sponsor shelling out maybe $150 million of cash and services to the IOC to promote its brand be truly independent? Possibly, but it seems to me a less than optimal arrangement for a body so much in the public eye to be party to.

If you agree with this line of reasoning, then either it should rule the IOC’s current auditor – PWC, as it happens – out of any new TOP sponsorship, or, if PWC joins TOP, the IOC should appoint a new auditor.

The second potential problem, in my opinion, involves the nature of what a professional services partner might be called upon to do. 

Unlike other TOP partners whose roles, while phenomenally important some of them, lie in carefully-defined areas of the IOC’s activities, a professional services partner could – could – become closely involved in determining the IOC’s overall strategy.

Yes, no doubt the IOC has employed professional services firms on all manner of projects in recent years, and has probably paid generously – in real money – for the privilege. Wouldn’t this be a way of avoiding that expense while retaining comparable expertise on tap?

Well, yes, it would; but if you always go to the same people for your research and your cyber defence and your blue-sky thinking et cetera, they can very quickly assume an extremely privileged position in your organisation.

Not only that, it seems to me that the anointment of what would effectively be an in-house professional services consultant could, if not managed properly, subtly undermine part of the function of IOC members.

I have always understood that one of the most important reasons for including individuals from many walks of life in sport’s most prestigious club, rather than simply assembling 100 or so retired athletes, was that it gave the body insight and deep expertise in all areas likely to impinge on the periodic organisation of the world’s greatest sporting festival.

What is more, this insight and expertise resides in people, whether princes or paupers, who have sworn a solemn oath as part of their initiation into the club.

Now, provided any professional services partner confined itself to gathering and supplying information and services that helped the IOC members to reach better decisions, I would not see a problem; if, however, the role of the partner started to veer over into recommending, or even taking, decisions itself, I would.  

I am not saying a TOP partnership in this sensitive field could not work to the overall benefit of the Movement; I am saying it would need to be very carefully managed and thought-through.

I did have the opportunity to observe the partnership between Deloitte, another big name in professional services, and the British Olympic Association (BOA) in the build-up to London 2012.

It appeared from the outside to work well; and insiders have confirmed that impression.

However, the BOA, as Host National Olympic Committee (NOC) was in a once-in-a-generation position where it needed to manage, as efficiently as possible, a rapid upscaling and then a downscaling of its activities.

Some of the functions it was required to fulfil in this period, it is unlikely to need to perform again for the foreseeable future.

That to me is a classic example of a situation when it makes sense to bring in an outside consultant with proven expertise in managing what, for you, are going to be one-off issues.

And that, in turn, is why I suspect it may make better sense to retain this sponsorship category at local level.

Apart from anything else, the Movement has come through the recent period of economic stagnation in the industrialised West relatively unscathed, at least financially.

Unlike many other sports bodies, the IOC can hardly be said to be under pressure to raise every penny it can.

If this is indeed a step that Lausanne is contemplating, I think it should reflect carefully on the full potential implications before taking it.