SL Benfica has flatly denied that AC Milan made any approach to sign centre-back António Silva, pouring cold water on a wave of Italian media reports that had suggested a deal was taking shape.
The denial is notable because the reports weren’t vague. They claimed Milan had already agreed personal terms with Silva on a contract running through 2031 and was preparing to submit a formal bid in the range of €20 million or more.
What the reports claimed vs. what Benfica says
Silva’s contract with Benfica runs until June 2027 and includes a release clause set at €100 million. A bid of roughly €20 million would represent about a fifth of that figure.
Benfica’s response was unambiguous. The club stated that no negotiations took place, no agreements were reached, and no approach was made by Milan.
Silva’s situation at Benfica is complicated enough already
António Silva has reportedly rejected a contract extension offer from the club, which means he’s heading into what would be the final year of his deal if nothing changes before next summer.
Silva has been a first-team fixture since breaking through in 2022 and has established himself as a Portuguese international. His representation by Jorge Mendes, one of football’s most powerful agents with deep connections across European football, adds another layer of complexity.
Benfica appears to be holding firm, presumably banking on the idea that a more suitable offer, one closer to that €100 million clause, might materialize as the summer transfer window progresses.
What this means for potential suitors
Any club genuinely interested in Silva needs to reckon with several realities. First, the €100 million release clause sets the ceiling, but Benfica’s willingness to negotiate below that figure likely depends on the offer being in the same general universe, not 80% lower. Second, Jorge Mendes’s involvement means this process will be managed with precision. The rejected extension suggests Silva wants a move, but the timeline and destination will be carefully orchestrated.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.

1 hour ago
11









English (US) ·