International Skating Union (ISU) director general Fredi Schmid used the body’s Congress in Thailand to reveal that the International Olympic Committee (IOC)’s payments to the ISU - and therefore, presumably, to other Winter Olympic International Sport Federations (IFs) - for contributing to the Beijing 2022 Winter Games are set to fall back below Pyeongchang 2018 levels.

According to my insidethegames colleague Geoff Berkeley’s story, Schmid told the Congress that while "IOC incomes in the past periods were CHF 11 million (£9 million/$11.1 million/€10.6 million)… unfortunately the IOC advised us that based on preliminary figures from Beijing the income…distributed among stakeholders will be lower."

Schmid went on: "[It will be] at the level of Sochi [2014], which means around CHF 9 million (£7.4 million/$9.1 million/€8.7 million) per year."

He added that confirmation would follow "later this year - we are not sure exactly how the incomes will end up."

The ISU official’s comments signal that, after a stellar leap in IOC contributions to IFs in the wake of the Vancouver 2010 Winter Games, the period of little if any growth into which we have since entered may well drag on all the way through until 2025 - a year which may also mark the end of Thomas Bach’s reign - and perhaps beyond.

The IOC’s own figures show that distributions to IFs leapt to $209 million (£172 million/€200 million) after Vancouver, compared with just $128 million (£105.5 million/€122.5 million) in the wake of Turin 2006.

Since then, the figure dipped back to $199 million (£164 million/€190.5 million) post-Sochi 2014, crept back up to $215 million (£177 million/€206 million) after Pyeongchang 2018, and now, Schmid’s comments would suggest, is probably about to dip again.

Schmid’s remarks allow for a certain amount of interpretation: a drop from CHF11 million to CHF9 million a year would be equivalent to a reduction of around 18 per cent; a fall from Pyeongchang levels - $215 million - to Sochi - $199 million - would be more like 7.5 per cent.

The difference might be accounted for by fluctuating foreign exchange markets - figures taken from ISU accounts indicate that whereas the dollar was worth CHF0.986 at the end of 2018, this was down to CHF0.911 by the end of 2021.

IFs, such as the World Curling Federation (WCF), whose accounting currency is the US dollar may find accordingly that their drop off in IOC contributions is smaller than those which use the Swiss Franc.

Then again, if the bulk of their costs are incurred in European currencies, this will amount to scant consolation.

IFs might also reflect that Beijing 2022 was billed as providing a magnificent, long-term boost for the winter sports industry by opening up a vast new market of enthusiasts in the world’s most populous nation.

It will of course be interesting to keep tabs in coming years on how that works out.

For now, Winter Olympic IFs remain hugely dependent on an IOC piggy-bank that has been disbursing what amounts to around $50 million (£41 million/€48 million) a year since 2010.

My back of envelope arithmetic based on scrutiny of ISU accounts indicates that the Winter Olympic dividend accounted for around 34 per cent of that body’s aggregate operating income over the 2018-2021 period - broadly CHF44.2 million ((£36.7 million/$44.5 million/€42.7 million) out of CHF128.6 million (£106.7 million/$129.5 million/€124.1 million).

The position of the International Ski Federation (FIS) looks not dissimilar - CHF44 million (£36.6 million/$44.3 million/€42.5 million) out of around CHF110 million (£91.3 million/$110.7 million/€106 million) of income generated or budgeted in the same four-year period.

The relative dependency of the smaller Winter Olympic IFs will probably be greater.

Indeed, examination of the WCF’s admirably clear and transparent financial documents indicates that IOC monies accounted for about 60 per cent of income between 2018 and 2021 - $20.9 million (£17.2 million/€20 million) out of $34.2 million (£28.2 million/€32.75 million), bearing in mind that the WCF has a June 30 financial year-end.

It is I think fair to say that all these percentages would have been somewhat smaller without the disruption caused by COVID: in the pandemic-blighted year of 2020, the WCF, for example, had income of just $6.7 million (£5.5 million/€6.4 million), just under $5.4 million (£4.45 million/€5.2 million) of which, ie over 80 per cent, was classified as "IOC monies."

Nevertheless, the Winter Games remains a major, major source of income for Winter Olympic IFs.

I have been advising IFs for years to do all that they can to develop new non-IOC-linked revenue streams.

This is partly because the IOC stream was no longer growing, and partly to guard against Lausanne exercising too strong an influence over their affairs.

I might as well, as the French say, have been blowing into a violin: for a variety of reasons, it has proved devilishly difficult for most Olympic IFs to manoeuvre themselves into a position where they are substantially less dependent on the IOC teat.

Now though a potent new incentive for IFs - and organisations of all sorts - to find ways of augmenting income has emerged: fast-rising inflation.

For much of the 2010s, IFs could console themselves with the thought that, even if their IOC-linked revenue was not really growing, inflation was just about non-existent; indeed, the rampant digital revolution was forcing the cost of many basic business services down.

Suddenly, in 2022, it is all-change and the cost of everything, from beverages to electricity, is going through the roof.

It is not a good moment, in other words, for Winter Olympic IFs to discover, seemingly, that they may face a cut in the very major revenue stream that their Olympic dividend represents.

If confirmed, moreover, this reduction would almost certainly apply until 2025, with no guarantee that the next dividend will be significantly better.

Boy does Vancouver 2010 feel like a long time ago now.