Structured Training: A Key Influence on My Methodology

Throughout my career, I have learned that every environment, every experience, and every person you work with leaves a mark. It’s not just about accumulating technical knowledge or innovative methodologies; it’s about how those influences ultimately shape your vision of training and your understanding of athlete development.

One of the most important influences in my career has been the Structured Training Model from FC Barcelona (FCB). From the moment I became familiar with this model, its holistic approach shaped my way of working, offering a much richer and more complex perspective on training. This model has not only been a constant reference but also a source of learning that I have adapted and applied across different sports, from badminton to tennis.

But the true value of the model lies not only in its structure and principles but also in how it has evolved and transcended beyond football, extending its influence to multiple disciplines and becoming a reference methodology for high-performance sports.

The Structured Training Model

The Structured Training (ST) model was developed by Francisco Seirul·lo and the performance department of FC Barcelona as a response to the limitations of classical periodization. Its theoretical foundation lies in the theory of dynamic complex systems, which considers the Human Sporting Being (HSB) as a hyper-complex, self-organizing system, composed of various structures that constantly interact and generate new adaptive properties (Pons et al., 2020; Tarragó et al., 2019).

Structures of the Human Athlete

The model identifies seven key structures, each playing an essential role in athletic action and performance (Seirul·lo, 2016; Tarragó et al., 2019):

1. Bioenergetic: Related to energy renewal and metabolic capacities.
2. Conditional: Focused on fundamental physical capacities such as strength, speed, and endurance.
3. Cognitive: Responsible for the perception-action process, crucial for decision-making in complex situations.
4. Coordinative: Related to the efficient execution of movement.
5. Emotive-Volitional: Regulates emotional response and motivation during competition.
6. Socio-Affective: Focuses on the athlete’s relationship with their environment and team members.
7. Expressive-Creative: Facilitates communication and game interpretation through movement.

Optimizer and Co-Adjuvant Training: Two Complementary Areas

The Structured Training model organizes the development process into two major areas, each with a specific but complementary purpose:

1. Optimizer Training (OT)
   This type of training is directly aimed at preparing the athlete for competition. It relies on Preferred Simulated Situations (PSS) that reproduce the real game context to enhance competitive performance transfer. These situations do not aim to repeat patterns but promote self-organization and decision-making in complex and variable environments (Pons et al., 2020).
2. Co-Adjuvant Training (CT)
   This type of training is not directly focused on competition but on strengthening the athlete’s general structures, preparing them to endure training demands and reduce the risk of injury. It plays a key role in functional recovery and the development of general capacities, providing the foundation for sustained evolution (Tarragó et al., 2019).

A Model That Evolved with Me

Over the years, Structured Training has reshaped my way of understanding athlete development. It taught me to approach it from a bigger-picture perspective, where everything matters—physical, cognitive, emotional, and social aspects all play a role. One of the biggest takeaways from this model is its flexibility and adaptability. It helped me move away from generic, cookie-cutter approaches and understand that every athlete’s journey is different. The key is to adapt, respect their personal process, and create something that fits them—not the other way around.

For me, this model became one of the pillars of how I work. It allowed me to build my own way of doing things, integrating performance, injury prevention, and long-term growth without losing sight of what matters most—the athlete’s individual journey. Variability, specificity, and self-organization became part of how I make decisions every day, they remind me that no two athletes are the same.

References

• Pons, E., López del Amo, J. L., & Cos, F. (2020). Structured Training in Team Sports: Optimising Performance and Reducing Injury Risk. Apunts: Educación Física y Deportes, 140(2), 50-58.
• Tarragó, J. R., Massafret-Marimón, J., Seirul·lo, F., & Cos, F. (2019). Co-Adjuvant Training: Complementary Strategies for Performance Optimisation. Apunts: Educación Física y Deportes, 138(4), 63-73.
• Seirul·lo, F. (2016). The Concept of Integrated Training in Team Sports. Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 11(1), 5-12.