As questions continue about the medical care Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Jalen Hurts received before doctors discovered blood clots in his lungs, NBC Philadelphia found that researchers a decade ago raised broader concerns about potential conflicts of interest in NFL players’ medical care.

The Harvard University report recommended separating the medical professionals responsible for treating players from those responsible for evaluating players for their teams. The NFL Players Association, the union representing NFL players, funded the 2016 study through a grant.

Hurts is likely out for the rest of the season after doctors found blood clots in his lungs and leg.

The discovery came after the Eagles traveled to England, where doctors cleared Hurts to play against the Jacksonville Jaguars after finding a superficial blood clot in his calf. After Hurts returned home, doctors learned that blood clots had traveled to his lungs, the team said. Because of medical privacy laws, the public may never learn everything about Hurts’ treatment.

Last week, the NFLPA called for an investigation into what led to Hurts’ diagnosis and why he was allowed to play after doctors found a clot in his leg. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said he would welcome a review, and over the weekend, both the league and the union said they were jointly examining how Hurts’ diagnosis was handled.

There is no indication at this point that the potential conflict identified by Harvard researchers played any role in Hurts’ medical care. But his case comes as the NFL faces renewed scrutiny over a question researchers examined years ago: Can medical professionals adequately serve the interests of both the player and the team?

“There is no doctor who is taking orders from a football person, a non-medical person, period,” NFL Chief Medical Officer Dr. Allen Sills told reporters during a news conference last week.

Under the current collective bargaining agreement between the NFL and NFLPA, teams retain medical personnel to care for players. The agreement states that “the club medical personnel’s primary duty in providing player medical care shall be not to the Club but instead to the player-patient,” regardless of the fact that the club retains the medical professional or their hospital, clinic or medical group.

In 2016, Harvard researchers studying the health and well-being of current and former NFL players identified what they called an “inherent conflict of interest” in the responsibilities club medical staff have to both players and their teams.

“The foremost obvious duty they have is to treat players, but then they also have a duty to advise teams about players’ health, both in the short term and long term,” sports attorney Chris Deubert, who co-authored the Harvard study, said.

The researchers proposed separating those responsibilities. Under their recommendation, one group would be responsible for player care and treatment. A separate club doctor would evaluate players for the club’s business purposes.

“It doesn’t mean that the players don’t get excellent health care the vast majority of the time or even all of the time,” Deubert said. “But it does erode the level of trust between players and the medical staff.”

An NFL spokesperson criticized the study as dated and disputed its findings.

“It was inaccurate then, and it’s inaccurate today,” the spokesperson said.

Sills also rejected the suggestion that team officials influence medical decisions.

“Any idea or any suggestion that a team physician is ever being influenced by a coach, a general manager, a team owner, it just doesn’t happen,” Sills said.

Dr. Aaron Baggish, a former team cardiologist for the New England Patriots who stopped working with the organization in 2022 and is now involved with NFL research at Harvard, described the competing responsibilities differently.

“There’s always inherent conflict,” Baggish said. “They have an obligation to address the needs and the demands of their employer, which is typically the general management and the coaching staff. And at the same time, they have a medical and ethical responsibility to do what’s right by the athletes.”

NFL players are allowed to obtain a second medical opinion under the collective bargaining agreement. The agreement says a player must consult with the club physician before following a course of treatment recommended by the second-opinion physician.

The contract language addressing medical personnel has become more specific since Harvard released its report in 2016. The 2020 contract, updated from the 2011 agreement, applies more broadly to club medical personnel and makes clear that their primary duty when providing medical care is to the player-patient, even though they or their medical organizations are retained by the club.

Deubert, however, said the potential structural conflict identified by the researchers remains.

“It’s an attack on the structure to raise serious questions about the structure and whether there could be something better and that they have not seriously engaged with,” Deubert said. “I think that’s disappointing.”

The NFLPA did not respond to a request for comment. Representatives for the Eagles directed questions to the NFL.

It remains unclear whether the investigation sought by the players’ association will examine only the decisions surrounding Hurts’ diagnosis and treatment or whether it will also examine the broader medical structure Harvard researchers scrutinized a decade ago.