Tom McParland 
Amid a lost year for the Philadelphia Eagles, there is perhaps no bigger storyline than the absence of their franchise quarterback, Jalen Hurts, who was placed on season-ending injured reserve last month after suffering blood clots in both his lungs. The diagnosis, publicly disclosed in a joint statement Oct. 19 from the team and Hurts’ agent, Nicole Lynn, followed a whirlwind series of events, which started with the Eagles’ ill-fated trip to London to play the Jacksonville Jaguars as a part of the NFL’s international series and culminated in an investigation by the league and the players’ union over the team’s handling of the situation.
The primary concern remains with the health and future of Hurts, a Super Bowl MVP who is sidelined indefinitely as he undergoes treatment with blood thinners. But the incident has also raised major questions among fans and members of the media, who continue to scrutinize the team’s decision-making based on the limited information that has been provided to the public.
The reputational harm, meanwhile, has been compounded by a seven-game losing streak (as of this writing), a slide which has all but eliminated the team from playoff contention. In the aftermath, it’s worth examining how the Eagles organization has communicated the crisis to its fans and how its posture may have impacted perceptions of the team and its motivations.
First, let’s take a look at the timeline, based on information since provided by the team:
- Oct. 7-9: Hurts practices in full with the team and requests initial treatment on a calf injury he attributes to taking a cleat to the lower leg during a game against the Los Angeles Rams a week prior.
- Oct. 9-10: The team travels to London, where an ultrasound ahead of the Jaguars game reveals a superficial blood clot in his left calf. Medical staff clears him to play.
- Oct. 11: Hurts plays in the Eagles’ game against the Jacksonville Jaguars in London and then flies back to Philadelphia.
- Oct. 14: Hurts is listed as a full participant in the team’s practice in Philadelphia. A follow-up ultrasound later that evening reveals that the clot has moved.
On Thursday, Oct. 15, the Eagles officially ruled Hurts out for the team’s Week 6 game against the Panthers, publicly disclosing, for the first time, the initial diagnosis of a superficial blood clot. Two days later, on the morning of Oct. 17, ESPN reported that the team was “not planning to place” the quarterback on IR. However, it was announced hours later that Hurts would in fact go to injured reserve, meaning that he would miss at least four games due to the injury.
On Monday, Oct. 19, following the Eagles’ 25-14 loss to the Panthers, Lynn and the Eagles announced the much more severe diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis and bilateral pulmonary emboli. The team has since confirmed that Hurts would remain out for the rest of the season.
Since then, head coach Nick Sirianni has been the only member of the team’s leadership made available to speak on the circumstances surrounding the injury. In an at-times contentious press conference following the team’s Week 6 loss, Sirianni defended the team’s decisions, repeatedly stating he was “not a medical expert” qualified to speak on the situation. No one from the Eagles’ front office or medical staff has spoken publicly with media.
Communication Breakdown
In the wake of Hurts’ diagnosis and the media maelstrom that followed, I’m reminded of my colleague Veronica Mikitka Reed’s recent post on the importance of bringing communications leaders to the table before, not after, a crisis. As she wrote, leadership decisions are no longer judged on outcome alone, but rather on “how those decisions are communicated, how they’re perceived, and whether they align with organizational values.”
By those standards, it is hard to call the Eagles’ response a success. Of course, there are other, very important considerations in this specific instance, such as the player’s health and privacy, as well as any pending legal issues created by the NFL and union’s ongoing investigation. However, in the absence of a strong and coordinated PR response, fans and media alike are left with more questions than they have answers, and in a pressure cooker of a sports city like Philadelphia, fueled by new forms of on-demand media and 24-hour talk radio, a perceived lack of transparency has certainly invited plenty of speculation and prevented the team from moving beyond the story.
Fans should have no reason to doubt that the organization cares deeply about the safety of its players. But naturally, the severity of Hurts’ condition, paired with the obvious stakes of a season slipping away, invites uncomfortable questions that perhaps the team should have anticipated. Did competitive pressure factor into the decision to clear Hurts to play in London? Was the injury not fully assessed before boarding two trans-Atlantic flights? Why was Hurts cleared to practice upon returning from London, before the follow-up ultrasound was administered? All of these are rational questions that the organization has not addressed in any meaningful capacity.
In crisis communications, we always advise clients to designate a single, strong spokesperson to act as the voice of the organization, authorized to communicate with the media and the public. In this instance, the head coach of the football team lacked the expertise to adequately speak on behalf of the Eagles or to explain the medical reasoning behind certain actions that were taken. Often, failing to address pointed inquiries can be interpreted, fairly or unfairly, as a sign of a cover-up, and here the organization would have been better served to make a representative from the team’s medical staff available to comment—if not on the specifics of Hurts’ case, then on the protocols the team had in place.
There’s also reason to suspect that the Eagles and Hurts’ camp were not aligned on how to proceed following the initial diagnosis. The context of the ESPN report, by seasoned NFL insiders Ian Rapoport and Adam Shefter, indicates that the team was driving the determinations around whether Hurts would be placed on IR, and the network never pulled or corrected the story, even after it was announced later in the day that the quarterback would be shut down.
The team did well to issue the joint statement with Hurts’ agent on Oct. 19, but the shifting statements around the IR determination were more than sufficient to create the perception of a lack of partnership between the organization and the player.
Room to Recover
With the investigation currently underway, it is unclear when, or if, the Eagles’ front office or ownership will fully address the team’s handling of the situation. But when that moment comes, it presents a genuine opportunity to deliver a clear, unified message, in coordination with Hurts and his representatives, and to answer questions that have lingered for weeks. Even an acknowledgement of certain missteps within the initial response would signal the kind of accountability the organization prides itself on—and which Eagles fans have come to expect.
Posted In Crisis Communications, Media & Culture