The NFL Says Jalen Hurts Received Careful Treatment, but the Players’ Union Says No Real Review Happened

The NFL Says Jalen Hurts Received Careful Treatment, but the Players’ Union Says No Real Review Happened
The NFL’s decision not to discipline the Philadelphia Eagles has done little to settle the controversy surrounding Jalen Hurts’ blood-clot treatment. Instead, a clash between the league’s medical defense and the players’ union’s account has created a second question: was the care actually investigated?

The concern began after Hurts was cleared to play in London despite a clot in his leg, then flew back to the United States before being diagnosed with deep-vein thrombosis and blood clots in both lungs. Medical experts said long-distance travel can increase clotting risk, while the Eagles and Hurts’ representatives said he had received “comprehensive medical evaluations” and expected a full recovery.

The NFL has emphasized caution rather than negligence. Chief medical officer Dr. Allen Sills said he had “complete confidence” in the Eagles’ medical staff and described the treatment as “very conservative, very patient-focused and appropriately guarded.” League officials said they spoke with Eagles personnel, doctors and the independent hospital in London, giving them what they called a complete understanding of the case.

That account directly conflicts with the NFL Players Association. The union said it was “not aware of any NFL investigation” and had previously been told the league did not plan to review Hurts’ care. It called for a “full investigation into what occurred” before conclusions were drawn.

The two perspectives overlap on one point: Hurts’ health and recovery remain paramount. But they diverge sharply on accountability. The NFL presents its contact with the Eagles and treating doctors as a sufficient review; the NFLPA argues that those conversations cannot substitute for a formal investigation. Until the league explains precisely what it examined—and when—the decision to clear the Eagles will remain less a resolution than an unresolved credibility dispute.