Tim Henrion Arnold, Mo. Is there some logical reason for the U.S. national teams to play “closed door” matches? The men’s team has played at least one in the last year or so and the women’s team has played several. I would think that the USSF would raise a little money or maybe attract a few more fans if these games were open to the public. Are there FIFA restrictions that could not be met for those games? Ridge Mahoney: Tim, the host federation and promoters incur a lot of expenses to stage a full international: Insurance, security, rental fee, stadium staff, police, etc. If two games were held against the same team within a few days in the same area, the federation would double many of its costs and would likely not draw twice as many fans since the crowd could be split. Some fans might go to both, but that’s a time and financial commitment. Prior to the Women’s World Cup, the United States routinely played a closed-door game against the opponent it would meet in an “official” match a few days later. Most people would prefer to see a weekend game, so a weekday game could draw far fewer fans — but many of the costs would be the same. And the coaches of many countries and clubs prefer to play an opponent just once; for a second game, they’d rather play somebody else. Events like the Gotham Cup are ideal for many teams; two games within three days, so the expenses are minimal but a lot of players get to play. The closed-door matches are held for the benefit of players and coaches, so as many players as possible can perform and the coaches can evaluate them. And closed-door games are much more low-key, an environment many players and coaches enjoy as a welcome break from full-scale battle.