The dispute, lingering for years, has led to much bad blood in the Olympic Movement with the summer federations, under the leadership of Dennis Oswald, leading the fight to get a fair share of Olympic money. 
The International Federations (IFs)’s argument is that the current split where United States Olympic Committee (USOC) gets a first cut of worldwide sponsorship and TV rights income from the Games - currently 20 per cent and 12.75 per cent respectively - is unfair and much too generous.

The USOC argument has been they get no Government funding and that back in the 1980s, when the Movement seemed about to collapse following the boycott of the 1980 Olympics, they bailed the movement out.

But after much haggling a deal was struck.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) was negotiating with a large corporation to become a TOP sponsor and it was agreed that when the deal was signed the USOC would not take its share.

This would be considered as payment back for Games cost.

The USOC felt this would be a neat way of getting round its own financial problems.

Like many organisations in these recessionary times it has had to cut back.

The idea of writing a cheque returning money to the IOC would not have looked good.

But voluntarily not taking up a payment due would have served the same purpose.

It would prove the Americans were serious about solving the issue and be a step forward in finally resolving the whole tangled affair.

But at the last minute the deal with the potential TOP sponsor was not done and it has left the situation unresolved.

This means the USOC and the IOC are back to the drawing board.

With the USOC under new management of Larry Probst as chairman and Scott Blackmun as chief executive there is optimism a deal can be done.

Both are aware that the USOC needs to be get back into the mainstream of the Olympic Movement.

Chicago’s defeat in the first round for the 2016 Games showed how far adrift of the mainstream the Americans were.

But while both sides say a deal has to be done the timing will now depend on whether the USOC launches another Games bid.

If, as looks likely, Denver does not bid for the 2022 Games then another American bid may not emerge until the 2024 Summer Games.

This means with the Americans under no pressure to cultivate the Olympic Movement for some time they may feel they are in no hurry to settle.

They may want to take their time to see how the financial situation develops over the next few years before finally agreeing a deal.

And that could take time.

Last year it was agreed that a new revenue-sharing agreement would be arrived at by the end of 2013 in time for full implementation in 2020.

But whether that time table will be met following the failure to agree a new TOP sponsor in Vancouver is now much more uncertain.


Related stories
April 2010: USOC drops plans for own television network
February 2010: Exclusive: IOC need to send signal they want US to bid for Olympics again claim USOC
January 2010: Blackmun vows to restore US creditability with Olympic Movement
October 2009: USOC must think carefully about their next move, warns Sir Craig
October 2009: Decision to award Olympics to Rio hailed but anger over treatment of Chicago