However, one may wonder why Milan did not consider constructing two stadiums.

If I were a Milan or Inter supporter (thankfully I am not), I would spend the five seasons leading up to the opening of the Generali Stadium getting drunk every day just to forget. Not so much because of what the stadium – which is set to unworthily replace San Siro – will look like (perhaps the exterior architecture, reminiscent of a string of Europa League trophies placed side by side, speaks to the clubs’ ambitions; certainly, the fact that one of the designers said it will be able to ‘host American football matches as well’ should give you asthma), but rather because I cannot understand how it is possible that, in 2032, two clubs that are by no means minor players in the history of football will have to share the stadium like two brothers sharing a PlayStation at home.

Numerous second-rate teams around the world, with far fewer supporters and trophies than Inter and Milan, have their own stadiums – so why can’t you manage it in Italy? A rhetorical question, of course, given the ongoing dinosaur-style battle for the presidency of the FIGC. And to think that, for the first time this year, Serie A has finally become a watchable spectacle: all it took was to give VAR the finger and start refereeing the English way – who would ever have thought it?

In short, we should not have to change the rules every six months simply to make the game more entertaining. Assuming, that is, that supporting a team is synonymous with having fun: for me it isn’t; it’s a much more serious matter. If I wanted to see lots of goals, I’d watch basketball, but this is what the bigwigs of world football want in order to sell the product to those who get their kicks from highlights without tiring their hands. And speaking of innovations, I raise a glass to the failure of Arsène Wenger’s offside proposal, trialled in Canada this year: the former Arsenal manager proposed calling offside only if there is space between the attacker and the penultimate defender – an idea that did indeed lead to fewer interruptions, but on balance resulted in few goals (though in that case it might be the fault of the Canadian strikers, who are good at hunting moose at best, not at scoring) and, above all, much deeper defences.

Now FIFA will be scratching its head and redirecting its efforts elsewhere, perhaps to address the major scandal exposed by The Guardian on Friday: the failure to equalise the prize money for the Women’s World Cup with that of the Men’s World Cup. It is worth noting that women’s football is often attended primarily by relatives of the players, whereas men’s football is followed even by women; however, the reasoning put forward by The Guardian as to why equal prize money would have been possible—and therefore obligatory—is particularly noteworthy: the funds are available, given that last year’s Men’s World Cup generated revenues of 15 billion dollars. In short: the men take home the wages and the women spend them. Patriarchy in its purest form. Cheers.