Published October 16, 2026 11:44 AM
The outside world (including anyone considering placing wagers on the game and/or the specific player’s performance) had no idea that Eagles quarterback Jalen Hurts had developed a blood clot in his leg before the team’s Week 5 game in London against the Jaguars. The Eagles, and the league, knew otherwise.
The statement issued by the Eagles on Thursday made it clear that the team was aware of the situation, and that the clot was revealed by an ultrasound examination performed after the team arrived in London. “Throughout our time in London and this week, we have remained in communication with the league office regarding the matter,” the Eagles said.
Given that the Eagles specifically said the team had “remained in communication with the league office,” we asked the league office whether it had anything to add — specifically as to the question of why Hurts’s status for the game wasn’t changed at any time to “questionable.”
“The team was in contact with the league throughout the process, including the morning of the game,” an NFL spokesperson said via email on Friday morning. “A team would need to make a public announcement immediately if there was any question as to his availability or if he would be impacted in any way. That was not the case here. We would not want a team to list a player as ‘questionable’ on gameday morning when the team knows with 100 percent certainty that he will play in the game. . . . Hurts played 100 percent of the snaps on offense during the game and there was no issue.”
That’s fine, but wasn’t there, at some point, a question as to Hurts’s availability? From the moment it was decided to seek an ultrasound to the moment that the doctors reviewed and analyzed the results, there was an obvious question as to the specific condition that had prompted Hurts to land on the injury report on Friday with a “calf” injury, and whether that condition could keep him from playing.
While Hurts played and took every snap, the league’s current policy (with which the Eagles complied) creates a donut hole of inside information that isn’t shared with the public. Hurts had a blood clot in his leg. That would be relevant information, especially as to anyone thinking about wagering hard-earned money through one of the sportsbooks that sponsor the NFL (and in which any NFL team owner can hold up to five-percent of the total equity).
Whether the NFL revamps its injury-reporting rules on its own or whether the mandate comes from Congress or a regulatory agency, it seems inevitable that more will be required, one of these days. The official injury report from the Eagles didn’t begin to paint the picture as to Hurts’s true condition and status.
Given that, between Saturday and Tuesday, the blood clot moved (making Hurts unavailable for Week 6), it would have been appropriate for the public to know that there was a possibility that, between Saturday and the start of Sunday’s game, the blood clot could move or Hurts’s condition could otherwise deteriorate.
And, yes, it’s possible to have genuine concern for the player’s health while also pointing out the flaws in the current rules that work to the disadvantage of the betting public. Every injury necessarily represents a negative impact on the player’s health. The question becomes whether or not there is sufficient transparency.
The NFL first adopted an injury-reporting policy nearly 80 years ago to ensure that the “public won’t be in the dark.” If that motivation still exists, the league will raise the bar considerably as to the things that teams are required to disclose.