When Inter Milan and AC Milan clash at Stadio Giuseppe Meazza on matchday, it’s not just about tactics or trophies — it’s a battle of financial DNA. On November 22, 2025, Corriere dello Sport dropped a bombshell analysis: Inter’s squad is worth €707.8 million — €222 million more than Milan’s — yet cost nearly €100 million less to assemble. The twist? Both clubs now spend almost the same amount annually, but only one is reaping the long-term rewards.
The Numbers Behind the Derby
According to Transfermarkt data cited by MilanReports.com, Inter Milan spent just €286.9 million to build a squad now valued at over €700 million. That’s a 141.2% return on investment. Meanwhile, AC Milan poured in significantly more — €383.9 million — and saw their squad rise by only 22% to €485.8 million. The difference isn’t just in acquisition costs. Inter pays €141 million in wages, while Milan’s is €99 million. But here’s where it gets interesting: Milan’s amortization costs are €94 million, nearly double Inter’s €51 million. Add it all up, and Milan’s total annual cost is €193 million; Inter’s is €192 million. In other words, Inter gets more value for the same money.
Why Inter’s Model Works
Under Giuseppe Marotta and Alessandro Ausilio, Inter operated under brutal financial constraints during the Suning Holdings Group era. They couldn’t splash cash. So they got smart. Free transfers. Strategic loans. Players bought for €5 million, developed, and sold for €40 million. Inter Milan didn’t chase stars — they built value. And it paid off. By summer 2025, with ownership now in the hands of Oaktree Capital Management, Inter finally had the freedom to spend — but they didn’t abandon discipline. New signings stayed under €25 million. Even when they missed out on Atalanta’s Ademola Lookman and Bayer Leverkusen’s Jean-Philippe Koné, they didn’t panic.
AC Milan’s High-Spending Struggles
AC Milan, by contrast, had cleaner books under Elliott Investment Management and later RedBird Capital Partners. They spent. A lot. But without continuity. The club went through three head coaches in two seasons. Their transfer strategy was reactive, not strategic. They bought names — not systems. The result? An eighth-place finish in 2024-25, their first season without European football since 2012. Even their 2024-25 Supercoppa Italiana win felt hollow. To fix it, RedBird raised their transfer ceiling from €25 million to €40 million. They signed 30-year-old Adrien Rabiot for €15 million, paid nearly €35 million for Christopher Nkunku, and splashed €35 million on Ardon Jashari. But these are stopgaps, not foundations.
The Squad That Isn’t Star-Heavy
Both clubs have quietly moved away from the old model of relying on three or four €80 million superstars. Transfermarkt shows only four Inter players and two Milan players are valued above €50 million. That’s not a weakness — it’s a sign of maturity. Inter’s strength lies in depth: a €35 million midfielder here, a €22 million defender there — all contributing, all appreciating. Milan, meanwhile, has shrunk its squad for the 2025-26 season, knowing they won’t face Champions League or Europa League fixtures. SempreMilan.com notes that adding just two or three players — something they’d have done with European qualification — would’ve pushed their spending closer to Napoli’s €232 million. But they didn’t. And that’s telling.
What This Means for Serie A
Napoli leads the league in combined wage and amortization costs at €232 million, followed by Juventus at €231 million. Milan and Inter are tied at €193 million and €192 million — but the gap between them and the top two is narrowing. That’s because Inter’s model is scalable. They don’t need to sell players to buy new ones. They don’t carry €100 million in amortization debt. They don’t need to sell their best player to afford a replacement. That’s the future of football finance. And it’s not theoretical — it’s happening right now in Milan.
What’s Next?
Inter’s ownership change to Oaktree Capital Management signals stability. Their financial team is now working with long-term horizons. Milan’s RedBird ownership, while well-funded, still feels like a series of emergency fixes. The real test comes in 2026-27. If Milan qualifies for Europe again, will they finally build a sustainable squad — or keep chasing quick fixes? Inter, meanwhile, will keep quietly building. No headlines. No drama. Just steady, profitable growth.
Frequently Asked Questions
How did Inter Milan build such high squad value with low transfer spending?
Inter’s success stems from smart recruitment under Giuseppe Marotta and Alessandro Ausilio during Suning’s financial constraints. They focused on free transfers, loans with purchase options, and undervalued talents — often buying players for under €10 million and selling them for 3-5x that. Their youth development and coaching under Simone Inzaghi maximized player growth, turning a €5 million signing into a €40 million asset — creating a 141.2% appreciation rate on their total investment.
Why is AC Milan’s amortization cost so much higher than Inter’s?
AC Milan’s amortization costs are nearly double because they’ve spent €383.9 million on transfer fees over the past decade — far more than Inter’s €286.9 million. These large fees are spread over contract lengths, creating massive annual charges. Inter’s lower spending means less amortization burden, freeing up cash flow and reducing financial risk — even if their wage bill is higher.
Does Inter Milan’s higher squad value mean they’re a better team?
Not necessarily — but it’s a strong indicator of sustainable performance. Squad value reflects market confidence in player quality and potential. Inter’s higher value comes from consistent development and fewer costly busts. While Milan has more star power on paper, Inter’s squad depth and cohesion have delivered better results in recent seasons, including back-to-back top-three finishes in Serie A.
What role does ownership play in this financial divide?
Suning’s ownership forced Inter to operate like a lean startup — no spending without returns. That bred discipline. When Oaktree took over, they maintained that culture but added financial breathing room. Milan, under Elliott and RedBird, had access to deep pockets but lacked a coherent long-term vision. Money without strategy led to inconsistent signings, coaching instability, and ultimately, poor league performance — proving that more cash doesn’t always mean better results.
Could AC Milan catch up financially to Inter?
They could — but only if they stop treating transfers like a lottery. To match Inter’s efficiency, Milan would need to reduce average transfer fees by 40%, invest in youth development, and extend contract lengths to lower amortization. Right now, their model relies on buying success rather than building it. Without a structural shift, even their €40 million spending cap won’t close the gap — it’ll just cost more.
Why is this derby more significant than just three points?
This isn’t just a local rivalry — it’s a case study in modern football economics. Inter’s model represents the future: value creation over cash splash. Milan’s approach is the past — expensive, volatile, and unsustainable. The winner on the pitch might get three points. But the winner of this financial war will shape how Serie A clubs operate for the next decade.
