Italian Media: Legality of San Siro Sale Questioned, City Government Accused of Completing Deal Early to Avoid Heritage Protection

According to a report by Football & Finance citing Italian newspaper La Verità, San Siro Stadium is still owned by the San Siro Stadium company jointly established by Inter Milan and AC Milan, but a lawsuit regarding the stadium sale is challenging the property transfer agreement signed at the time. This means that before the two clubs begin demolition or redevelopment work, they may first need to resolve a key legal question: whether the Milan city government had the authority to sell San Siro at that time.

The report said the dispute centers on a difference of just five days. The Milan city government sold San Siro on November 5, 2025, while on November 10 the stadium’s second-tier stands would have reached 70 years since construction, meeting the review threshold for public cultural assets under Italy’s Cultural Heritage Code.

La Verità reported that the parties challenging the deal believe these five days could be decisive. Because the city government completed the sale on November 5, San Siro had already left the category of public assets before reaching the 70-year threshold, potentially avoiding the review process for public cultural assets. The lawsuit documents argue that the practical effect of this action was to “prevent a procedure that should have begun a few days later.”

This potential risk was not previously unknown. As early as 2023, the regional cultural heritage committee in Italy had already determined in advance that San Siro’s second-tier stands had “ordinary cultural value.”

Therefore, lawyer Brago, representing a Milan resident identified as A.O., filed a lawsuit with the court, requesting that the stadium sale transaction be declared invalid on the grounds of “circumventing the law.”

The lawsuit does not argue that the sale agreement signed by the city government on November 5, 2025 was itself illegal, but instead questions whether the transaction was deliberately completed before cultural heritage protection procedures could begin, thereby achieving through another method an outcome that the law might otherwise have prohibited.

The lawsuit documents state that the contract may have been used as a “means of avoiding the application of Article 12,” thereby bypassing the relevant non-transfer provisions.

In addition, the plaintiff raised another legal argument: San Siro’s second-tier stands may have already been protected as cultural heritage as early as 2005. At that time, the legal threshold was 50 years, and it was not increased to 70 years until 2011.

The lawsuit was filed under Article 9 of Italy’s Consolidated Law on Local Authorities. Under this provision, when a local government fails to take action to protect its own property interests, voters may bring related legal action on behalf of the local government. The complaint specifically points to “the inaction of the Milan city government.”

Brago’s side believes that the Milan city government had received multiple warnings about the legal risks before completing the transaction but continued to proceed with the sale. On October 22, a warning was issued that setting the property transfer date before November 10 could be considered “an attempt to avoid cultural heritage restrictions”; on October 25, another request was made to postpone the signing date as a precaution; on October 30, relevant parties further raised the issue of the previous 50-year protection threshold.

However, the Milan city government ultimately completed the transaction according to the original plan.

Therefore, although San Siro is currently still owned by the San Siro Stadium company jointly established by Inter Milan and AC Milan, if the court ultimately determines that there were legal problems with the sale transaction, the two Milan clubs’ future plans for demolition, redevelopment of San Siro and construction of a new stadium could be affected.