It’s been a rough couple of weeks to be a Philly sports fan. The Phillies were knocked out in the Wild Card round. The Flyers have won just three of their first 12 games. Somehow, I’m most upset with the Eagles.
On October 4, Eagles quarterback Jalen Hurts was cleated in the calf during a game against the Rams. Five days later, he was on a plane to London for the Eagles’ matchup against the Jaguars. While in London, doctors discovered a blood clot in his calf. Hurts reportedly remained at the hospital until around 4 a.m., running on very little sleep before playing the entire game later that day. Then, on October 11, he boarded another long flight back to Philadelphia.
Three days later, doctors discovered that the clot had moved, sidelining Hurts for Week 6 and eventually landing him on injured reserve. On October 19, the Eagles announced that Hurts had been diagnosed with deep vein thrombosis and bilateral pulmonary emboli, meaning blood clots had traveled to both lungs. The team expects him to make a full recovery, which is obviously great news. That still doesn’t erase how concerning the entire situation is.
Jalen Hurts is the face of the Eagles. He brought a Super Bowl championship to Philadelphia. He is beloved by this city. Somewhere along the way, though, it feels like protecting his health became secondary to getting him onto the field.
Hurts played an entire NFL game after doctors had discovered a blood clot in his leg and after spending much of the night in the hospital. Hours later, he boarded a long international flight back to Philadelphia. Knowing what happened in the days that followed makes it hard not to question how he was ever allowed to play in the first place.
At what point should someone have stepped in and said that playing football simply wasn’t worth the risk?
That question goes beyond Hurts. Professional sports constantly celebrate athletes for playing through pain, pushing their bodies to the limit, and doing whatever it takes to compete. There has to be a point where toughness stops being admirable and starts becoming dangerous. When a player is unwilling to make that distinction for himself, the responsibility should fall on the medical professionals and the organization around him.
That is where my frustration with the NFL comes in.
The league has spent years insisting that player safety is a priority, yet football still has a culture that rewards players for sacrificing their bodies for the game. Hurts’ situation is another example of the contradiction between what the NFL says about player safety and what we actually see happen on the field.
The NFL has defended how the situation was handled. Commissioner Roger Goodell praised the league’s medical protocols, while reports indicated that the Eagles were not expected to face disciplinary action over Hurts’ care. Saying the protocols were followed doesn’t really make me feel any better. If everyone followed the rules and Hurts still played an NFL game with a known blood clot before taking an international flight home, maybe we need to question whether those rules are good enough in the first place.
We have seen this happen before.
For years, the NFL has faced criticism over its handling of concussions and the long-term effects repeated head trauma can have on players. The league eventually strengthened its concussion protocols, though many of those changes came after years of research, lawsuits, and pressure from players and their families. It should not take another major controversy for the NFL to take a serious look at whether its current medical policies are actually protecting the people they are supposed to protect.
The NFL Players Association is now calling for a full investigation into the medical care Hurts received. That investigation is necessary. We do not know whether a doctor made the wrong decision or whether anyone involved actually violated NFL policy. The fact that Hurts’ care may have followed league protocol is exactly why the situation deserves a closer look.
The NFL seems focused on whether everyone followed the rules. I’m more concerned with whether those rules actually protected Hurts.
There is a difference.
Football has created a culture where playing hurt is practically part of the job. We praise players for finishing games despite injuries. We celebrate the ones who refuse to come off the field. Fans question whether players are tough enough when they sit out, sometimes without knowing anything about what is actually happening with their health.
That culture is exactly why players need people around them who are willing to say no.
Hurts may have wanted to play. He may have felt fine. He may have told everyone around him that he could handle it. He is also a professional athlete who has spent his entire career being taught to compete, push through pain, and stay on the field. At some point, someone else has to be willing to make the decision he might not want to make himself.
Thankfully, Hurts is expected to make a full recovery. As an Eagles fan, I care a lot more about seeing him healthy than seeing him back on the field anytime soon.
A full recovery, however, should not make everyone forget what happened.
Maybe an investigation will find that every decision made about Hurts was medically reasonable. Maybe the Eagles followed every NFL policy exactly as they were supposed to. If that is the conclusion, the conversation should not end there. It should shift toward whether those policies need to change.
The NFL cannot keep talking about its commitment to player safety while maintaining a culture where getting back onto the field is treated as the ultimate goal. Sometimes protecting a player means telling him he cannot play, even when he desperately wants to.
Jalen Hurts does not owe Philadelphia another snap at the expense of his health. No player does.
Getting them home healthy should matter more than getting them back on the field.