This "behind closed doors" nonsense is completely stupid.
Nobody likes footbal behind closed doors. It's used as a punishment when clubs or fans have misbehaved, and for a very good reason - it's a soul-less, dismal experience for fans and players alike. Besides, as we all know, fans would gather outside the grounds, "closed doors" notwithstanding, unless the games were to be played on a desert island. You only have to look at the mobs of Liverpool fans who attack opposing teams' coaches to see evidence of this. Plus of course fans would congregate to watch games on TV, either in pubs/clubs, or if those aren't open, in each other's homes. This would happen despite any prohibition, we all know that.
The whole idea is fundamentally flawed - if this was to be done, it would mean that a quarter of the season would be played under totally different conditions to the first three-quarters, which would be unfair to everyone. One example - West Ham were due to play Aston Villa on the last day of the season, a game which could easily be vital to both teams. Is it fair that Villa would have enjoyed home advantage, while West Ham were denied this?
Is it reasonable that medical personnel (who would of course have to attend) be taken away from the "front line" where they are desperately needed, just so that football matches can be played?
Either this virus means that people must isolate, or it doesn't. It's obviously impossible to play football with nobody getting within six feet of each other - the very idea is laughable. Also, it's been calculated that you'd need some hundreds of people even for a "closed doors" game.
Just imagine this - games are somehow played, then a player or official is diagnosed with the virus! Everyone in the stadium would have to isolate immediately, and the whole process would collapse at once.
I haven't touched on ome of the other problems, such as players' contracts expiring at the end of June.
The whole idea is a complete non-starter.