Be skeptical of that $358m Puma figure - analysis of value through media exposure has been discredited for several reasons. For starters it usually only takes in to consideration the amount of time a logo appears on screen for and extrapolates value on the basis of the cost that the same duration of advertising. This does not weight the value of size, position , position to relative to competition, sentiment towards the athlete etc, in essence does it give the sponsor control over the marketing message or brand position. Nor does it say anything about the relative value of the exposure - as the prices for the advertising in the particular time that the event took place this is highly distorted, and says nothing about how much other athletes exposure was worth etc. It is akin to saying that some woman in a D&G shirt on at the Superbowl, and gets 10 seconds on TV because a camera man and producer happen to be momentarily fascinated with her breasts, is worth $1m to Dolce and Gabbana .
One other objection I have to this method in this particular situation is that nothing is said about how much of it is attributable to Bolt being sponsored by Puma - the only thing that bolt had on that was a result of his sponsorship was a pair of shoes, much of the exposure would likely have come through the sponsorship of the Jamaican Olympic uniforms and would have been received if he had been sponsored by any one.
In part this is true but also part of the benefit as well. it is supportive of traditional ads but also benefits are accrued by exposure for other reasons or advertisers in a piggy-back fashion.