A protester outside held a sign insisting “San Siro belongs to the citizens” but Milan’s city council was about to change all that, voting to sell one of the world’s most famous football stadiums to tenants who plan to tear it down. Milan have played home games at what is officially the Stadio Giuseppe Meazza since 1926. Inter moved in with them 21 years later. They propose to build a shared home on the same grounds.
It has been a long time coming. The clubs announced joint plans for a new stadium as long ago as June 2019, with an intention to complete work within three years. International architecture firms were consulted and designs made public, but they never progressed out of this first phase.
To build on their existing site, they would first need to own it. San Siro has belonged since 1935 to the Comune di Milano – the administrative body that manages the central municipality of Milan. The clubs’ attempt to negotiate a purchase six years ago were stalled by the Covid-19 pandemic, then by a combination of political opposition and laws governing the preservation of historic landmarks.
In 2023 Milan put forward a separate project to build their own stadium in San Donato, a south-eastern suburb. The viability of this proposal has been debated – local regulations would have required them to preserve a significant parcel of land as public green space, raising questions about whether the area left over would be large enough. But both clubs were actively exploring their options.
Was it partly a negotiating tactic, designed to pressure authorities into letting them rebuild at San Siro? No doubt. But that does not mean these were hollow threats. When Inter’s president, Giuseppe Marotta, was asked by the Italian broadcaster Sky Sport last month whether there was a risk of his club being forced to relocate outside the main city of Milan, he replied: “Absolutely yes.”
Marotta has been at the forefront of this battle in recent times, making the case repeatedly in interviews for why a new stadium is needed. Emotionally, it can be a tough sell.
San Siro remains one of the most breathtaking places to watch football, a concrete colossus that bears down on you with the weight of its construction as much as its history. Dizzyingly steep stands keep you feeling close to the action even at the top of the third tier. The pull of gravity up there, allied to tremors underfoot when a big goal goes in, is a uniquely intoxicating thrill.
There is beauty, too, in the brutalism of its exterior design, from the latticework of red steel that sits as its crown to the hypnotic effect of those spiral walkways that appear to turn as they deliver fans back to ground level from the gods. An instantly recognisable setting, in an era when too many other venues tend towards the familiar.
And still, a place that may not fit in modern football. Last September, Uefa stripped San Siro of hosting rights it had been awarded for the 2027 Champions League final, after local authorities failed to deliver on commitments for planned refurbishments. In its current state, the ground would not be eligible to host games during the 2032 European Championships in Italy and Turkey.
Allow Instagram content?
This article includes content provided by Instagram. We ask for your permission before anything is loaded, as they may be using cookies and other technologies. To view this content, click ‘Allow and continue’.
That last reality might be most jarring of all: Milan, an affluent hub for culture, fashion and finance, not to mention the home to two of the world’s most famous football teams, unequipped to involve itself in an international tournament. As Marotta put it last month: “The city of Milan risks winding up with a marginal role in the European and global game.”
His arguments were accepted by the local council, which voted by a narrow majority (24 to 20) to approve the sale of the Meazza and a parcel of surrounding land at San Siro for €197m. This after a debate that ran for more than 11 hours, concluding not long before 4am on 30 September.
The strength of feeling on either side is unlikely to fade any time soon. A first legal appeal against the sale was announced within days by a group of local residents. Marotta has characterised the current chapter as an “interim bureaucratic phase”, saying: “In November we will draw up the deeds then we can move forward to the planning phase.”
Any successes in stalling the sale could have major implications. One possible obstacle in moving on from the old ground relates to legislation designed to preserve historic buildings. The second tier of the Meazza may become listed as a landmark 70 years after its construction in late 1955, but only if it is still owned by the local authorities. Even here, the date of when that rule should kick in is disputed.
Assuming the sale does complete, Inter and Milan will take control of the land at San Siro through a holding company in which each club hold an equal share. The intention is to break ground on a new stadium in 2027 and open it by 2031. The architecture firms Foster + Partners and Manica have been commissioned for the design.
after newsletter promotion
The stadium will be built next door to the old one, on land used for a car park. This could allow the teams to continue playing at San Siro throughout, swapping to their new home once it is ready. The old ground would then mostly be demolished, with sections preserved as part of a redevelopment to include commercial buildings, offices and hotel space.
The thought of losing one of Milan’s, and world football’s, famous landmarks is sad. But outside the local politicians and residents fighting against the sale of a public good, responses have been largely pragmatic.
Fabio Caressa, a veteran journalist and broadcaster, argued that those people still objecting “don’t offer alternatives … They only say no because San Siro is a work of art. You can still go into museums, you can visit the Colosseum, but they aren’t functional to everyday life. They don’t still hold shows in the Colosseum.”
Ultra groups of organised support for Inter and Milan have held protests this season over price rises and the exclusion of individual fans and banners from the Curva, but so far there has been less noise about the new stadium. Where statements have been made they have typically expressed concerns that the move could be used to marginalise them further, rather than anger at leaving a historic home.
Broadly, there is acknowledgment that this is the nature of modern football. Inter and Milan desperately need to unlock fresh income streams to stay competitive with rivals overseas.
The gap between Premier League TV revenues and the rest of Europe is almost unbridgeable but matchday income is one of the clearest opportunities these clubs have for growth. According to Deloitte, Real Madrid pulled in €248m from games hosted at the renovated Bernabéu in 2023-24, a figure that has continued to climb. Milan pulled in €87m in the same chapter, and Inter €81m, at their rented home.
A new stadium will not be a cure-all, but it will be an important step toward continued competitiveness. Perhaps supporters too, will eventually recognise some upsides in their own experience. There will be no nostalgia, for anyone who has had the displeasure to experience them, for a visit to the Meazza toilets.
“This is the start of a difficult, arduous path,” said Marotta after the council voted at the end of last month. “But I believe we will have our satisfactions.”
