I'm not judging relevancy on just the amount of sponsorship but it is a sign pointing to "relevancy". No World Tour team would use Shimano if it's 1% disadvantage over brand X. Seeing Campy not being used at all is again: another sign of this company being relevant, when paired with their loss of market %.
By that logic, you would see very little variety in types of components used by world your teams. Teams are in the business of making money, if SRAM offers them a better deal, team owners will find it hard to say no.
The logic I'm displaying is using a variety of different metrics in order to come up with a conclusion. I also never said that SRAM is irrelevant, only questioning why Shimano seem irrelevant to the the original poster I replied to - and I also mentioned how much product they push in the second sentence.
But the business of World Tour temas is also to win, as winning means being invited to the big races, which actually have coverage for the ads-on-wheels that riders are to get eyeballs on. If they can't win because of crap gear, they won't use said gear, no matter how much money given to them.
It's a fine balance, right? Some riders of high talent are also pretty controlling on the gear they use, and will bring their own bike sponsor into a team as part of the deal of transfer. Chicken and egg I guess: if the gear is irrelevant, you'll never see it on the Pro Tour.