This paper addresses choice reaction speed and the proficiency of controlling spatially-driven response impulses. The purpose was to investigate the hypothesis that collegiate football players are more proficient than their non-athlete counterparts at controlling impulsive motor actions. Results showed that the choice reaction times and accuracy rates of football players and controls were comparable, indicating that the two groups achieved a similar balance between reaction speed and accuracy. Similarly, football players and controls were equally susceptible to producing incorrect impulsive motor responses. In conclusion, the results contribute to emerging evidence that football players possess exceptional executive control over their motor systems. The paper has potential to advance the literature related to athletes' performance experiences in sports. However, at the moment, the manuscript suffers from several issues that need to be addressed.Specifically, introduction is not linear and sequential (see pp. 8-9 line 146-147), it is very long and sometimes redundant (see p. 7 Simon Task description). It is essential to advance the argument/justification about the need for conducting this study. When reviewing the research, please include effect sizes for the most important studies you cite. Some information for the sample description is missing in the script so far. Probably the authors have assessed the information but simply forgot to mention them: training years (mean, SD, range) and training days per week. A time-line, based on the training plan, may illustrate a 'typical training week from Monday to Sunday' with all training sessions, including the time, and competitive match. It is not clear concerning the grading system used to classify the skill level of the players. This needs to be elaborated upon. Procedure: When was it done – on the day or a separate day? This is important with regards to a potential learning or practice effect. The authors should indicate, for example: - duration - place - how the participants were recruited? Explain why the control group is so small. From a methodological point of view, a higher control group should be nvestigated. The abstract is quite good, it is short and focusses on the main results. I suggest to restructure the introduction and and make easier. The discussion is written in accordance with the hypotheses. and in a chronological order. Limitations: There should also be a statement acknowledging the low sample (control group) size as a weakness.