A rhetorical figure that has a name or one that doesn't have one yet?

This Wednesday, the university entrance exam students (it seems the word isn't very popular anymore) were taking their literature exam. I always wait to see which literary figure they're asked for. And, while I was waiting, I read this headline in ARA: "Aena, the airport manager that will pilot the expansion of El Prat Airport." The day before, on Catalunya Ràdio, I had written a piece on the same subject with a similar joke, which I warned about. That is, you're using a verb that has to do with the activity you're referring to. Since we're talking about airplanes, "he'll play ball." If we were talking about military personnel, we could write "he'll command." This technique is often used in celebrity magazines. They tell you that this Olympic swimmer's marriage is "going south" or that this actor, now that he's a father, is "facing the most difficult role of his life." They might tell you that the chef Marc Ribas is "slowly cooking" his love or that this sommelier is "choosing" to be single.

As I can't think of what literary figure it could be (it's not one of the classic ones), I ask my colleague Màrius Serra (now that we are celebrating 25 years since the publication of Verbalia) if anything occurs to him. He tells me, "It's clear contamination, I'll look it up for you." It could be, of course, that the ARA headline was involuntary. But it could be that it was, as in my case, with animus yocandiAnd then he tells me: "It would be a functional metonymy." Well seen. And he adds: "That is to say, an element of the subject influences the verb by contiguity, as in metonymies." You already know that they substitute one concept for another, which is related to it. Like "iron" for "gun." And in this case, for me, in this example of metonymy there is a hint of euphemism. Is it a literary figure that exists and has a name, or does it not yet have one? If so, we should verbalize it. Ideas are welcome.