Unfortunately late often means never. Speaking in the area of my own specialism...

When Harsanyi got the economics prize in 1994, he shared it with Nash and Selten. But it would have been much more appropriate if he had shared with Morgenstern and von Neumann, not that Nash and Selten did not also deserve the prize, indeed probably Nash most of all. But M and vN had died in 1977 and 1957 respectively, so long did it take for work done in the 50s and earlier to be recognised as important.

When James Mirrlees got the economics prize, it is generally understood that he would be a sole recipient. But he shared it with William Vickrey, who is not normally a name that comes to mind at the same time as Mirrlees, although the citation gave a plausible connection, albeit one that is sufficiently broad that by that token one ought to include the next people that I am going to mention. When one reads a summary of Vickrey's principal contributions, it doesn't include anything that Jim (he was my tutor, though he barely remembered me when I last met him) is noted for. But Vickrey was on his death-bed and in fact died just 3 days after the announcement, so he got added in so as not to be missed, it seems. At least Vickrey's family would benefit, but it seems a bit unfair on Jim.

When Jean Tirole eventually gets the economics prize, as he will, he ought to share it with Jean-Jacques Laffont. Unfortunately the delay means that Laffont is already dead, so not even his family will benefit.