The Jalen Hurts Case: Even NFL Partners Are Criticizing the League

If the Philadelphia Eagles' approach was truly as cautious as the NFL claims, why did Jalen Hurts play a full game just a few hours after spending much of the night in the hospital for a blood clot? That's the question former player Devin McCourty asked on the show “PFT Live,” and it sums up the unease surrounding this situation.

On Tuesday, however, the NFL's chief medical officer, Dr. Allen Sills, defended the Eagles' handling of the situation, calling it cautious and patient-centered. This stance did not convince everyone—not even some media outlets with financial ties to the league.

ESPN, in which the NFL holds a 10% stake, is a good example. On the show “First Take,” Chris “Mad Dog” Russo strongly criticized the Eagles and the league. He pointed out that the NFL had long been slow to act on concussions and is now considering an 18th game, which, in his view, contradicts its rhetoric on player safety. He also called it unacceptable that the Eagles sent head coach Nick Sirianni to answer medical questions instead of a doctor. Finally, Russo denounced the series of announcements regarding Hurts' absence: first one game, then four, then the entire season.

Mike Silver of The Athletic, another NFL content partner, also published a scathing column. He accuses the league of prioritizing its own protection above all else, even though its own doctors were informed of the blood clot the day before the game.

A Burden from the Past

Critics often draw parallels with the concussion issue. Seventeen years ago, under pressure from the U.S. Congress, the NFL was forced to take head injuries seriously after years of reluctance.

Several observers believe history could repeat itself with other serious health issues. They also criticize the league for citing patient confidentiality, even though Hurts' diagnosis and treatment have already been made public in detail. For now, the NFL maintains that no mistakes were made.

Created by humans, assisted by AI.