In this special analysis, Football Benchmark CEO Andrea Sartori examines the plans for AC Milan and FC Internazionale’s new shared stadium and answers the following three key questions: how much additional revenue could the new stadium generate, what level of investment will it require, and does it truly make sense for the two clubs to continue sharing a home? Originally published on 9 October 2025. Updated on 5 November 2026 following the unveiling of Generali Stadium, with refreshed financial data and analysis.
Last year, the Milan City Council approved the sale of San Siro and its surrounding land to AC Milan and FC Internazionale, clearing the way for the stadium’s partial demolition and the construction of a new, shared home for the two clubs. The acquisition was completed in November 2025, marking a decisive shift from municipal tenancy to ownership of the stadium and surrounding site.
A year later, on 29 October 2026, the two clubs unveiled the design for their new home, the Generali Stadium. The planned 71,500-seat venue will replace the existing San Siro, offering modern hospitality facilities, enhanced matchday experiences, and new commercial opportunities. The development will also form part of a wider urban regeneration project, with construction expected to begin in 2028 and the first match targeted for the 2031/32 season.
The announcement also provides a clearer indication of the project’s commercial foundations. Generali has been secured as naming partner before construction begins and will also become Official Insurance Partner of both clubs. Securing a long-term naming rights agreement already provides a future revenue stream that can help finance the project.
Italian clubs have long fallen behind their European counterparts in terms of infrastructure. Juventus FC is the only top club with a modern, wholly owned stadium, the Allianz Stadium, which was inaugurated in 2011. Across Europe, leading clubs have invested heavily in new or refurbished grounds, recognising the critical role of stadium infrastructure in financial sustainability and competitiveness. Tottenham Hotspur FC and Real Madrid CF have already demonstrated the transformative impact of their new stadiums, while FC Barcelona’s Camp Nou redevelopment provides another prominent example of the drive to modernise facilities and expand commercial opportunities. In England, Everton FC recently moved into a new home, while Manchester United FC are planning a new stadium near the Old Trafford site.
Milan’s new stadium project represents a pivotal opportunity not only for the clubs but for Italian football as a whole. Beyond the pitch, it promises major socio-economic benefits for the city, from urban regeneration and job creation to the establishment of a new landmark capable of attracting global visitors through a wide range of events, as seen in cities like London, Manchester, Barcelona, and Madrid. A modern venue would also enhance Milan’s reputation, enabling it to host major events such as Euro 2032 matches and reducing the risk of losing high-profile events, as happened when uncertainty surrounding San Siro's future led UEFA to award the 2027 Champions League final to Madrid instead of Milan.
Within this context, in the following paragraphs, we will analyse three fundamental questions in relation to the new stadium project: what potential revenue upside could the clubs expect, how much will the new stadium cost, and why does sharing still make strategic sense?
What potential revenue upside could the clubs expect?
For AC Milan and FC Internazionale Milano, the starting point is clear: despite strong fan demand, both clubs remain far behind Europe’s elite in matchday income.
Real Madrid’s latest results underline the broader revenue potential of the redeveloped Bernabéu. The club reported €363m in stadium revenue in 2025/26, up 56% year on year and 107% above the €175m generated in 2018/19, before the redevelopment. This represented almost 30% of the club’s €1.221bn operating revenue, illustrating how a modern stadium can generate further income through additional experiences.
Looking across clubs, the 2024/25 matchday revenue ranking provides a consistent basis for comparison. Real Madrid led with €232.6m, while Inter and AC Milan ranked ninth and 15th, respectively. Inter generated €103.6m, a 39% increase, helped by their run to the UEFA Champions League final, while Milan recorded €69.5m.
Even taking Milan’s best season to date, €82.3m in 2023/24, alongside Inter’s €103.6m in 2024/25, their combined matchday revenue would reach €185.9m. That is slightly more than half of the stadium revenue of Real Madrid’s 2025/26 figure and also below Manchester United’s €190.7m in the 2024/25 season.
Crucially, this shortfall compared to other top clubs is not due to poor attendance: in the post-COVID era, both clubs consistently attract more than 70,000 fans per game, with average Serie A attendances of 73,370 for AC Milan and 73,020 for Inter in 2025/26, among the highest averages in Europe. The gap lies in San Siro’s outdated infrastructure, which offers limited scope for premium hospitality, commercial activities, and non-matchday events, all essential pillars of modern football economics.
Using as a reference the 2024/25 season, RevPEPAS (revenue per event per available seat; a ratio that measures the economics of the stadium considering total matchday revenues, capacity and number of fixtures played) provides a sharper lens. FC Inter (€47.1) and AC Milan (€33.9) ranked only 17th and 38th in Europe. By contrast, PSG (€147.4) and Real Madrid (€102.5) achieved more than twice as much per seat. Based on the €363m stadium revenue Real Madrid published for 2025/26, the club’s RevPEPAS would rise to €172.3. Even Juventus, at their peak in 2018/19 with Cristiano Ronaldo, achieved €72.7. The comparison highlights the structural disadvantage Milanese clubs face under the current setup.
A modern venue would allow both clubs to narrow the gap with Europe’s elite teams. With approximately 71,500 seats, the new stadium will have a lower capacity than the existing San Siro and both clubs’ recent average league attendances. The revenue opportunity therefore lies primarily in an improved seating mix, including a greater provision of premium seats and hospitality facilities, alongside enhanced services. Milan’s location in one of Europe’s wealthiest regions, with a substantial corporate market across the city and surrounding area, provides a strong market for corporate hospitality.
Based on these benchmarks, an illustrative RevPEPAS range of €90–€110, expressed at current values, would translate into approximately €174m–€212m in annual matchday income per club, assuming the planned capacity and 27 home matches per season, a major increase in comparison to recent years' revenue generated by San Siro for both clubs.
Improved food and beverage facilities offer further opportunities to increase spending per visitor. Beyond matchdays, other sporting events, concerts, corporate functions, and rental income from retail space could broaden the stadium’s revenue base. Museums dedicated to both clubs could also establish the venue as a key tourist attraction in Milan, supporting the generation of income from visitors throughout the year.
The commercial potential is already underlined by the naming rights agreement with Generali, reportedly worth approximately €650m over 25 years, equivalent to €26m annually across the two clubs (€13m each). The reported value would place it among the most lucrative stadium naming rights agreements in European football.
Comparisons between naming rights agreements require context, as commercial packages differ and financial terms are not always fully disclosed. Relationships such as Arsenal–Emirates, Manchester City–Etihad and RB Leipzig–Red Bull illustrate how stadium naming rights can sit within broader sponsorship arrangements. The figures below reflect separately reported stadium naming rights values where available, rather than the total value of these wider partnerships, and should be interpreted as indicative benchmarks.
The Generali agreement also highlights the prominence of insurers among stadium naming rights partners. Generali’s direct competitor Allianz holds the naming rights to the stadiums of both Juventus and Bayern München, while fellow insurer Signal Iduna is Borussia Dortmund’s naming partner. Including Generali’s agreement, insurers would account for four of the eight highest-ranked deals in this comparison.
How much will the new stadium cost?
The newly unveiled Generali Stadium will have, as mentioned, a capacity of approximately 71,500 seats, arranged across two tiers forming a continuous 360-degree bowl, compared to the three tiers of the existing San Siro. The design prioritises an enhanced matchday experience, with steeper stands bringing supporters closer to the pitch, alongside expanded premium seating and hospitality facilities.
The stadium will form the centrepiece of a wider 281,000 sqm urban regeneration project, incorporating commercial and leisure areas, offices, hotels and public spaces, with the aim of generating additional matchday and non-matchday revenues. The overall investment is currently reported at approximately €2.3 billion, including acquisition of the site, stadium construction, surrounding real estate developments, infrastructure works and the partial demolition of San Siro. Within this wider investment, the stadium itself is expected to cost approximately €1.2 billion to construct, according to media reports.
The stadium construction estimate provides a more relevant benchmark for comparisons with other venues than the overall redevelopment budget. We looked at a sample of nine stadiums newly built or substantially redeveloped since 2015, each with a capacity of more than 50,000. All figures are drawn from publicly available sources and, where available, exclude land acquisition and investment in external infrastructure.
The most expensive project in the sample is Real Madrid’s Bernabéu, at more than €1.7bn or over €21,000 per seat. Everton’s new ground (€17,400) and Tottenham Hotspur Stadium (€15,600 per seat) also sit at the upper end of the range, while Lyon’s Parc Olympique (€5,400) and Atlético Madrid’s Metropolitano (€3,500) represent the most cost-efficient examples.
Based on the reported €1.2bn stadium construction estimate and the outlined capacity, Generali Stadium would cost approximately €16,800 per seat. This would place it towards the upper end of the comparison, below the Bernabéu and Everton’s new ground, but above Tottenham Hotspur Stadium. These figures have not been adjusted for inflation and reflect differences in project scope and specifications, so they provide reference points rather than directly equivalent construction costs.
The financial viability of the wider €2.3bn development will depend on whether the stadium and surrounding commercial assets generate sufficient cash flows to cover construction, financing, operating and maintenance costs while providing an adequate return on investment. Sharing the investment would reduce each club’s funding requirement and could deliver economies of scale, although a portion of the revenues and economic benefits would also be shared.
Why does sharing still make strategic sense?
AC Milan and FC Inter have cohabited San Siro for decades, historically as tenants of a municipally owned venue. Following the acquisition of the site, jointly developing and operating a new, purpose-built venue is a very different challenge, with benefits and risks that merit careful consideration.
Firstly, it is fundamental to understand whether the sharing option is feasible. In terms of attendance, matchday revenues, fan base size, and sporting performance, AC Milan and FC Inter are remarkably similar, which favours pursuing a shared home option.
In other European top leagues, it is uncommon for clubs to play in shared stadiums. While many reasons could lie behind such an approach, tradition and socio-cultural aspects play a crucial role in this regard. The Nerazzurri and Rossoneri have long been accustomed to sharing not only a stadium but, to some extent, the city’s footballing identity. The shared stadium has become a symbol of their rivalry and of the city of Milan itself, recognised worldwide. This socio-cultural acceptance gives the shared model unique legitimacy.
The financial rationale is clear. Sharing a stadium would generate major economic benefits for both clubs, a particularly relevant factor given their recent financial recoveries. AC Milan recorded their first net profit in 17 years in 2022/23, while FC Inter followed in 2024/25 after a decade of losses. After three consecutive profitable seasons, AC Milan recorded a net loss of approximately €24m in 2025/26, reflecting the impact of their absence from European competitions. Inter, meanwhile, posted a second consecutive profit of €22.7m. At the same time, the wider Italian football industry has struggled to grow media revenues, making the income potential of a state-of-the-art stadium increasingly vital for top clubs to remain competitive.
Primarily, by splitting development costs, the capital burden on each club would be significantly reduced. The same applies to ongoing maintenance and operating expenses, which are often underestimated but represent a considerable long-term saving when shared. Crucially, this model would not affect matchday earnings: ticketing and hospitality revenues would continue to be retained independently by each club, ensuring that income streams from their respective games remain intact.
The Generali partnership demonstrates that a shared venue offers a sponsor an association with both clubs and exposure across their respective home fixtures. Although the resulting income must be divided, the agreement illustrates how joint development can create an attractive proposition for a major commercial partner.
Risks remain and would need to be carefully managed. Logistically, coordination can be challenging, as shown in 2022 when AC Milan were unable to celebrate their Scudetto triumph at San Siro because Inter were hosting their final league fixture. Future scheduling, pitch maintenance, and access for commercial or media events would require a well-defined operational framework.
Brand identity can also present a challenge. A shared stadium inherently limits each club’s ability to fully customise the venue. While technologies such as adaptive lighting and digital branding can mitigate this, some compromises are inevitable. That said, the “neutrality” of the stadium could actually become a strength, positioning it as a year-round entertainment hub that appeals to broader audiences beyond football.
On the financial side, potential downsides include the additional costs of continuous redressing of the stadium for alternating tenants and the need to share revenues from non-football events such as concerts, conferences, corporate events and stadium tours. Potentially, joint ownership could also complicate sponsorship strategies.
On balance, I believe that the benefits of a shared stadium for two clubs such as AC Milan and FC Inter far outweigh the drawbacks. Importantly, despite their fierce rivalry, both organisations and their supporters have demonstrated for more than 70 years their ability to coexist in the same venue, making the shared model both more financially sustainable and strategically sound.
Shared challenges, greater rewards
After years of delays, Milan's stadium project is finally moving towards reality, with the Generali Stadium design now unveiled and opening targeted for the 2031/32 season. If delivered, the impact will be transformative: a modern venue in one of Europe's wealthiest regions could generate significant additional annual revenues per club.
For Milan and Inter, continuing to share a stadium is less about rivalry than pragmatism. With an investment of this scale, splitting development and operating costs strengthens the business case, while the city’s unique football culture gives the model rare legitimacy. Some challenges remain, but the benefits outweigh the risks.
In the long term, a shared home has the potential not only to enhance the competitiveness of both clubs but also to deliver broader economic and cultural rewards for the city. Indeed, a venue housing two mega-club museums would be a landmark tourist attraction in its own right, reinforcing Milan’s global profile.
At Football Benchmark, we help clubs and investors work through these decisions, from assessing stadium feasibility and shaping the initial concept to planning how a venue can perform commercially over the long term. Our work covers both new projects and existing stadiums, helping clients develop clear strategies and make the most of their investment.
