Background: Nutritional supplementation is widely used to support physical and cognitive performance in football. However, evidence on multi-ingredient protocols combining taurine, caffeine, and phosphatidylserine (PS) remains limited in professional athletes. Methods: Eighty-one professional male football players (19–32 years) were randomly assigned to three groups (n = 27): placebo (P), taurine + caffeine (TC; 1500 mg taurine + 200 mg caffeine), and taurine + caffeine + PS (TCP; 1500 mg taurine + 150 mg caffeine + 300 mg PS) in a randomized, placebo-controlled, single-blind trial. Supplementation lasted 10 days, with a final dose administered 60 min before a standardized 105 min training session. Reaction time, sprint performance, GPS-derived variables, and technical/tactical indicators were assessed. Data were analyzed using ANOVA with post hoc tests, and pairwise comparisons were additionally adjusted using the Holm–Bonferroni correction due to the exploratory nature of the analysis. Results: Compared with placebo, the TCP group was associated with more favorable physical, cognitive, and selected game-related outcomes (p < 0.05). TCP was associated with higher locomotor performance (η2 = 0.13–0.20) and smaller fatigue-related declines in sprint performance (−18% vs. −34%) and speed (−10% vs. −19%) (η2 = 0.18–0.22). Reaction time and technical indicators, including passing accuracy (84% vs. 75%) and dribbling success (73% vs. 62%), were also improved. Higher coach-rated tactical performance scores were observed in TCP (η2 = 0.19–0.25). Conclusions: A short-term multi-ingredient protocol including taurine, caffeine, and PS may be associated with improved physical, cognitive, and selected game-related outcomes in professional football players. However, due to differences in caffeine dosage between groups, the independent effect of PS cannot be determined. Further double-blind studies are warranted. Given the exploratory nature of the analysis, the multiple assessed outcomes, and the partly subjective coach-rated tactical evaluations, the cognitive and tactical findings should be interpreted cautiously and regarded as preliminary rather than confirmatory evidence.
Mizera et al. (Mon,) studied this question.