Commissioner, chief medical officer back the team while players’ union calls for answers
Commissioner Roger Goodell broke his silence Wednesday and said the league would have no problem with the NFL Players’ Union initiating a review into the Philadelphia Eagles’ handling of Jalen Hurts’ recent clot diagnosis, while expressing confidence that league protocols were followed.
Goodell told reporters at the NFL’s fall meeting that “there was a medical evaluation, and I think our protocols were incredibly good there,” and that “the protocols were followed.” He added that Hurts’ health is the primary concern, saying, “I’m more worried about his health, ultimately.”
The NFL’s chief medical officer, Dr. Allen Sills, publicly defended the Eagles’ medical staff, saying he has “complete confidence in the Eagles’ medical staff and their handling of this situation.” Yahoo! News also quoted Dr. Sills as calling it “nonsense” to suggest “that any of our physicians would put a player in harm’s way.”
The NFL Players’ Union has urged a full investigation into the sequence of events surrounding Hurts’ care. The union said it was unaware of any league probe and called for a comprehensive review to determine the facts and ensure player safety going forward.
What happened: tests in London, clearance to play, later diagnosis
The timeline at the center of the dispute began in London. After results showing a blood clot were reviewed, the Eagles’ medical staff and consulting London doctors cleared Hurts to play the following day against the Jacksonville Jaguars under the belief that remaining active and mobile was important.
Days later, the Eagles and Hurts’ agent, Nicole Lynn, announced that the Super Bowl LIX MVP had been diagnosed with deep vein thrombosis and bilateral pulmonary emboli — meaning a clot traveled to both lungs. That diagnosis prompted immediate medical treatment; the team said Hurts would not be able to participate in football activities while he is being treated with blood thinners.
Multiple media outlets have reported that Hurts is out for the season while undergoing treatment.
Dispute and scrutiny center on the decision to play and travel
The decision to clear Hurts for play in London and to allow travel back to the United States has drawn criticism from some observers. Critics questioned whether the potential risks were fully weighed when the team elected to keep Hurts active and have him fly after the game. The NFL has received those concerns amid the union’s call for a full accounting.
Goodell, Sills and the Eagles’ medical staff now find themselves defending the same clinical decisions that prompted the criticism. Goodell welcomed the union’s call for review, saying he was confident a thorough review would show protocols had been followed. Dr. Sills’ public comments framed the matter as one where the team and league medical professionals acted appropriately.
The NFL Players’ Union, however, emphasized that determining the facts requires a full investigation before conclusions are drawn, calling that step essential to ensure players receive the highest level of care and protection going forward.
Where the league stands and what remains unresolved
Goodell’s comments made clear the league will not obstruct an inquiry by the union. He framed the immediate priority as Hurts’ health while reiterating that league protocols were applied. Dr. Sills’ statements added a medical endorsement of the Eagles’ internal handling.
At the same time, several public questions remain about the circumstances surrounding Hurts’ diagnosis and the team's decisions after reviewing the results. The union’s demand for a full investigation aims to clarify those specifics.
Officials have stressed that a formal review should establish the timeline and medical judgments that led to the decisions in London and afterward. With Goodell signaling openness to a union-led review and Dr. Sills publicly backing the Eagles’ staff, the league, the club and the players’ representatives now face a process that will test how medical protocol, player welfare and transparency intersect in high-stakes situations.
