The absurd risk of Milan losing out on the stadium race

As keen football fans, placing our faith in the miracles of the ‘Zona Cesarini’, by mid-afternoon on 30 September we were still waiting for the FIGC (itself awaiting news of its own fate: but that’s all politics) to finally announce the list of stadiums in the running to host the 2032 European Championship matches. The initial shortlist will be whittled down to five cities. And since Italy is not a country of revolutions – not even when it comes to football – the shortlist will look much the same as usual: Turin with the Allianz Stadium, Milan, Rome, Naples and a run-off between Palermo and Florence.

And here, having left the ‘Zona Cesarini’ behind, we plunge into a fray reminiscent of days gone by, in which Milan itself takes centre stage – whether as an unknown quantity or perhaps a sacrificial victim of perverse decisions. Because, in 2032, it is still unclear which stadium Milan will have. So, strictly speaking, for which venue will the FIGC be putting the Lombard capital forward as a candidate? (A quick disclaimer: even in the dossier on the Milan-Cortina Olympic bid, it had to be specified that the opening ceremony would take place at the Meazza – whether it had been sold or was about to be demolished made no difference). The saga of the stadium in Milan is, in fact, a string of incredible paradoxes and missteps. Let’s start with the most recent paradox: a few days ago, the City of Rome – with the approval of the Services Conference, following a process lasting just 90 days – gave the green light to the project for Roma’s new stadium in Pietralata. The club and the City Council have agreed that work will begin by March 2027, with the aim of having the stadium ready in 2031, in time to host Euro 2032. It is unlikely to happen – the Olimpico will be used instead – but the new stadium is a decision driven not only by private but also by public interest; the path forward is clear. In record time, the City of Bologna also approved the plans yesterday for Bologna’s new, privately-owned stadium in the Fiera area. Naturally, other cities are moving more slowly on such projects: in Naples, De Laurentiis dreams of a new stadium, but the city council has opted for a refurbishment of the Maradona; whilst Florence is grappling with the labourious renovation of the Franchi, having roundly rejected Fiorentina’s plans for a new stadium.

But the case of Milan is the most astonishing. Here, the two clubs, Inter and Milan, were the first to launch their new stadium project in July 2019, seven years ago; yet the decision to sell part of the site (“Grande Funzione Urbana San Siro”) for the new development and to demolish (partially, though the outcome remains to be seen) the Meazza stadium was only finalised at the eleventh hour last autumn. As a result, Rome and Bologna (Rome perhaps even with two stadiums, should Lazio’s Flaminio project get off the ground) could capitalise on this and have their new stadiums before Inter and Milan.

It is not merely a paradox of timing. The fact is that the new stadium project, despite the sale having gone through, is still in the balance. The sword of Damocles in the form of the Regional Administrative Court (TAR) hangs over its head. The Lombardy Regional Administrative Court has consolidated five appeals against the sale and the plans for the new San Siro stadium; the ruling was expected by September, but the process seems to be dragging on. And, of course, there will then be the Council of State. The appeals are considered weak or specious: they challenge the legality of the sale, the resolution on public interest – approved by a majority in the City Council – and the historical preservation restrictions, despite the Regional Administrative Court having already rejected the requests for a stay of proceedings aimed at triggering the famous 70-year period after which the Superintendency’s protection takes effect. And despite the fact that the Superintendency itself had made it clear that there was no scope for any restrictions, let alone architectural ones. Then there were the appeals by the developer Claudio Trotta and the ‘Sì Meazza’ committee, which questioned the sale price (set by the Revenue Agency), whilst Trotta complained about the tight timeframe of the tender (which was entirely in accordance with the rules), even though it is difficult to imagine that a few extra weeks would have enabled him to raise the billion-plus needed for the deal.All of this—with a certain margin of uncertainty, given that we are, after all, talking about the Italian justice system—could be overturned by the Regional Administrative Court.

The real weapon of those seeking to block the project is the timeline: even as it stands, it will be difficult to meet the deadlines agreed with the City Council – work to begin in 2027 and the stadium to be ready in 2031; furthermore, the architectural firms Foster+Partners and Manica have only announced that the project will be presented by the end of October, but it is clear that before formalising all the necessary steps, Inter and Milan (as well as the City Council) are waiting to see the appeal proceedings concluded. Then there is even a criminal investigation (into bid-rigging and the disclosure of official secrets) which, although recent rulings have begun to deflate the grandiose urban planning investigations, will drag on. Long enough to force Inter and Milan to throw in the towel? Probably not, but the paradox of coming last, or being left with an old and inadequate stadium (the dream of the brilliant ‘archaeologists’ of the Meazza), is a real own goal.