Top-up training is one of the least visible but most important parts of modern professional soccer. While supporters see the players who complete 90 minutes, performance staff are already thinking about another group: the unused substitutes, late replacements and squad players who have spent most of matchday preparing to compete but ultimately accumulated little meaningful physical exposure.
For those players, the end of the game does not always mean the end of the working day.
Additional conditioning after the final whistle, or compensatory work on the following day, has become common across professional soccer because players who repeatedly receive limited minutes can gradually accumulate less high-speed running, sprinting, acceleration and overall physical load than regular starters. If that difference is allowed to continue for several weeks, the player may be expected to start an important match without having recently experienced the physical demands associated with one.
The logic behind compensatory training is therefore straightforward. The challenge is deciding how much is required, when it should be delivered and what type of work best prepares the individual player.
That discussion came sharply into focus at Arsenal in October after Piero Hincapié and Martín Zubimendi both suffered injuries during an additional session conducted after a 2–1 Premier League victory over Leeds United. Hincapié had entered the match in the 82nd minute while Zubimendi had remained an unused substitute, meaning neither had accumulated anything close to a normal starting player’s match exposure.
Arsenal subsequently provided them with additional work intended to maintain physical readiness. Mikel Arteta defended the principle behind the session, explaining that players who do not accumulate enough training or competition load can find it difficult to produce the rhythm and intensity required when they are eventually selected.
The fact that two players were injured in the same session naturally attracted attention, but the incident should be interpreted carefully. It does not demonstrate that top-up conditioning is inherently dangerous, nor does it prove that Arsenal’s training prescription caused either injury. Soccer injuries are multifactorial and can be influenced by previous workload, tissue tolerance, fatigue, recovery status, individual injury history, movement exposure and numerous other variables.
The more useful question for coaches is therefore not whether top-up sessions should exist. It is how they should be designed.
A Substitute Is Not Automatically an Underloaded Player
One of the biggest mistakes in compensatory training is treating all non-starters as one group.
The physical experience of a player who remains on the bench for 90 minutes is very different from that of a player introduced after 55 minutes. A defender playing the final 25 minutes may experience a completely different movement profile from a winger entering for the final ten, while a midfielder introduced when the team is defending a lead may accumulate different demands from a substitute entering when the team is aggressively chasing a goal.
Research into professional soccer top-up practice supports this complexity. An applied study examining 184 post-match top-up observations found that compensatory sessions averaged approximately 17 minutes but were influenced by several contextual factors, including position, substitution timing, match location, result, stage of the season and fixture density.
Unused substitutes generally completed more work than players who had appeared during the match, which seems logical. However, even among those who had played, the amount and type of exposure could vary considerably.
This is where the simple label of “starter” or “non-starter” becomes insufficient.
A player may technically be classified as a substitute while still completing 35 competitive minutes at very high intensity. Another may enter in the 88th minute and accumulate almost no meaningful high-speed exposure. A third could remain unused but have completed a substantial warm-up and repeated accelerations along the touchline.
The performance staff therefore need to evaluate what the player actually experienced rather than relying entirely on selection status.
ISSPF’s Training Load Management in Football explains why this distinction between external and internal load is important. External load describes the work performed, such as total distance, high-speed running, sprinting, accelerations and decelerations. Internal load reflects how the player responds to that work through measures such as perceived exertion, heart-rate response and other physiological indicators.
Neither tells the complete story alone.
Two players may cover similar distances but respond very differently. Equally, one player may report significant fatigue after relatively limited movement because of travel, poor sleep, previous match exposure or individual recovery status.
That is why top-up conditioning should begin with a question rather than a standard session: what physical stimulus is this player currently missing?
If the player has already accumulated sufficient acceleration and deceleration exposure but very little high-speed running, the top-up session should not necessarily consist of repeated small-sided games that generate yet more changes of direction. If a player has accumulated reasonable total distance but almost no sprint exposure, simply asking them to run more kilometres may add volume without solving the actual preparation problem.
This is where GPS and other monitoring technologies become useful, provided the data lead to better decisions rather than larger dashboards.
Recent research specifically examining compensatory training has shown that structured post-match work can substantially reduce the difference in high-speed and sprint exposure between starters and players receiving limited minutes. One 2026 study involving 43 professional players found that a short high-intensity compensatory intervention increased high-speed running and sprint distance substantially among unused and low-minute substitutes, helping reduce the gap created by limited match participation.
The implication is not that every substitute needs the same running programme after every match. It is that compensatory work can provide a useful physical stimulus when it is targeted appropriately.
ISSPF’s Football Training Load Management: Maximising Performance in Team Sport reinforces the same principle. Training should expose players to the physical qualities required by competition while balancing fitness, freshness and fatigue.
Top-up conditioning sits directly inside that balance.
The player needs enough exposure to remain prepared, but additional work becomes counterproductive if the pursuit of missing load ignores what the individual has already accumulated.
Matchday Top-Ups or MD+1? Timing Changes the Problem
The second major decision concerns timing.
Some clubs deliver compensatory work immediately after the game. Others conduct the session on the following morning, while some distribute the missing exposure across the next one or two training days. Each option has advantages and limitations.
The immediate post-match session can be operationally convenient because the players are already at the stadium, prepared physically and psychologically for competition, and the difference between starters and non-starters is immediately clear. It also allows clubs to restore some missing high-intensity exposure before recovery begins.
However, matchday circumstances can be unpredictable. Kick-off time, travel arrangements, temperature, emotional stress, available space and the exact point at which players stop warming up can all influence the session.
Away fixtures create another problem. The team may need to leave the stadium quickly for flights or long journeys, reducing the time available for a carefully controlled conditioning session. This partly explains why research has found that top-up practices differ between home and away matches. The alternative is MD+1.
Here, the squad can divide into two broad groups. Players who accumulated substantial match minutes enter recovery-focused work, while non-starters or low-minute players receive a more meaningful physical stimulus.
A recent 2026 study in professional women’s soccer illustrated this type of split clearly. Starters accumulated their major weekly load on matchday, while non-starters recorded significantly greater external and internal training loads on MD+1 and MD+2. The findings supported a differentiated post-match strategy in which the starter group prioritises recovery and players with limited match exposure receive compensatory conditioning. This does not mean MD+1 is always preferable.
The correct decision depends always on when the next game is.
If the team plays again three days later, the available loading window becomes extremely small. A non-starter on Saturday could suddenly be required to start on Tuesday because of injury, suspension or rotation. The staff need to maintain readiness without creating residual fatigue that compromises the very performance they are preparing for.
Fixture congestion therefore changes the value of every training decision.
ISSPF’s Fixture Congestion in Football highlights how compressed schedules reduce recovery opportunities and place greater importance on training-load management, squad rotation and individual player preparation.
Within these periods, top-up work should become more individualised rather than more aggressive.
Consider two players who both remain unused on Saturday. One has started the previous four matches and was rested deliberately. The other has played only 20 competitive minutes across the previous three weeks. Their matchday status is identical. Their training requirement is not.
The first player may benefit more from recovery and relatively modest football-specific exposure. The second may need a much more substantial high-intensity stimulus to maintain the physical capacities required for a future start.
This is why the training week needs to be viewed cumulatively.
A performance department should understand not only what happened in the latest match but what the player has experienced across the previous seven, 14 and 21 days. High-speed running, sprint exposure, accelerations, decelerations, total training volume and strength work all contribute to the physical picture.
Equally important is what comes next.
If a player is highly likely to start the next fixture, the aim is readiness for that match rather than simply replacing every metre missed at the weekend. Attempting to reproduce an entire 90-minute load immediately may be unnecessary and may compromise preparation.
Compensatory training is therefore not an accounting exercise in which every missed kilometre must be repaid. It is a prescription problem.
Top-Up Training Should Look Like Soccer Preparation, Not Punishment
The third question concerns content.
Traditional compensatory sessions can include running intervals, repeated high-speed actions, small-sided games, larger possession games, technical conditioning and combinations of these methods.
Each produces a different physical profile.
Small-sided games are often useful because they maintain a relationship with the game while generating repeated technical actions, duels, accelerations and decelerations. However, the restricted space often means players do not achieve enough genuine high-speed running or sprint exposure.
Larger-area games create more opportunities to open up and run at higher velocities, but the number of accelerations and tight changes of direction may fall.
Running-based conditioning offers greater control over distance, speed and recovery periods, although the work becomes less tactically representative.
The strongest solution is therefore often a combination.
If GPS data show that a player lacks high-speed exposure, the session may include controlled running before moving into football-specific work. If the primary gap is acceleration load, smaller games may provide a more relevant stimulus. If the player has hardly played for several weeks, the conditioning requirement may need to be spread across multiple training days rather than compressed into one severe session.
The game model should still influence the design.
A team that repeatedly asks full-backs to overlap and recover over large distances may need to ensure those players retain exposure to high-speed efforts. A central midfielder operating inside a highly compact pressing model may require a greater density of short accelerations, decelerations and directional changes.
Generic load targets become less useful when they ignore the positional demands created by the team’s playing style.
This is why performance staff and coaching staff must build the top-up session together.
The conditioning coach may identify that a player requires additional high-speed work, but the head coach may know that the player is likely to start in a position with a specific tactical role three days later. The most effective session connects both pieces of information.
ISSPF’s External & Internal Training Loads with Injury Risk Review reinforces why training load should be understood as multidimensional rather than through one single metric. Total distance can be useful, but it does not describe the mechanical stress associated with repeated acceleration or the neuromuscular demand associated with sprinting.
The same principle applies to player readiness.
A player can achieve the desired GPS numbers while still being poorly prepared tactically. This is especially relevant for substitutes who may have spent several matches away from the starting XI.
Top-up training can therefore include tactical reinforcement as well as physical conditioning. Players expected to enter the team in the next game may benefit from position-specific work that combines the physical exposure they require with the tactical actions they are likely to perform.
The session then stops becoming something the player completes because they “failed to play”. It becomes preparation. That distinction also matters psychologically. Unused substitutes have already experienced the disappointment of not participating. If the post-match session feels like a punishment, the quality of engagement may suffer. Players should understand why the additional work is necessary and how it supports their chance of being ready when selected.
Communication therefore forms part of load management.
The Objective Is Squad Readiness, Not Equal Work
One of the reasons compensatory training matters so much is that a successful season requires more than 11 fit players.
The starting team may appear stable for several matches before injuries, suspensions, rotation or tactical changes suddenly place a squad player into the lineup. At that moment, the coach expects the replacement to perform at the same competitive speed as someone who has been playing every week. That becomes extremely difficult if the player has spent the previous month systematically underloaded.
Top-up conditioning is therefore fundamentally about maintaining the readiness of the entire squad.
The objective should not be making every player accumulate exactly the same training load. Starters and non-starters have different requirements because their competitive exposure is different.
The goal is to prevent those differences from becoming large enough that selection status itself changes physical readiness. This becomes especially important when substitutions occur late.
Research examining professional substitutes has shown that players entering during the final 15 minutes frequently accumulate relatively limited high-speed running compared with those introduced earlier. The player may technically have participated in the match but still require additional preparation. Again, minutes alone are only part of the picture.
Ten minutes in an open game involving repeated transitions may be physically demanding. Ten minutes spent protecting a lead within a compact low block may involve comparatively little high-speed exposure. Context changes load.
The modern performance staff therefore need to combine several pieces of information: minutes played, positional demand, GPS output, recent weekly load, subjective wellness, next-fixture proximity and the player’s likely selection status.
The final decision should emerge from that combined picture.
Arsenal’s recent experience provides a useful reminder of why this area is difficult. Arteta’s central argument is supported by performance logic: players who are not playing need enough training stimulus to remain physically prepared. At the same time, the unusual occurrence of two injuries in one post-match session inevitably places attention on how that additional work is prescribed.
Both ideas can be true simultaneously.
Top-up conditioning can be necessary while still requiring careful individualisation.
It is also important to avoid overstating the relationship between workload and injury. Injuries cannot be predicted simply from a GPS report, and a high-load session does not automatically cause a subsequent muscular problem. ISSPF’s Managing Training Load in Elite Football explores why load information should contribute to decision-making without being treated as a perfect injury-prediction system. The same caution should shape discussion of the Arsenal injuries.
Hincapié and Zubimendi being injured during additional work does not allow an outside observer to determine whether the session was excessive. Without knowing their recent training history, individual GPS exposure, medical status, strength data, previous injury history and exact nature of the exercises performed, any causal conclusion would be speculation.
What the incident does provide is a valuable coaching question.
How confident are clubs that their non-starters remain ready?
That answer should not depend on a standard 15-minute running block performed by everyone who failed to reach an arbitrary match-minute threshold. A better model begins before kick-off.
Performance departments can identify expected physical targets for each player and prepare different contingency plans depending on whether they complete 90 minutes, 60 minutes, 20 minutes or remain unused. Once the match finishes, actual exposure replaces prediction.
A player who unexpectedly completes only five minutes may receive one programme. Another who plays 30 intense minutes receives another. The football schedule, previous workload and next selection decision then shape what happens over the following 48 hours. The process becomes adaptive rather than automatic. That is the central lesson for coaches at every level.
Professional clubs may have sophisticated GPS systems, but the principle also applies where technology is limited. Coaches can still record minutes played, understand recent training attendance, monitor perceived exertion and recognise whether a player has been consistently receiving competitive exposure.
The question remains the same regardless of resources: does this player currently have enough appropriate work behind them to perform the role we may ask them to perform next?
ISSPF’s Training Load Management in Football, Recovery Strategies in Soccer and Fixture Congestion in Footballprovide further insight into how fitness, fatigue, recovery and competition exposure can be integrated within the weekly training process.
Top-up training is unlikely to disappear from elite soccer because the problem it solves is real. Squads contain players accumulating dramatically different competitive workloads, yet every player may be required to perform at short notice. The challenge is ensuring that compensatory work does what its name suggests.
It should compensate for what the individual player has missed, not simply add more training because the player did not start. That difference is where good load management begins.
Keywords:
soccer top-up training, non-starter soccer training, substitute training soccer, football training load, compensatory training soccer, GPS load monitoring, fixture congestion soccer, high-speed running soccer, post-match training
Did you enjoy this article?
Thanks for your feedback!
