There are two main reasons for Philadelphia Eagles fans to hate Jeffrey Lurie: He’s a billionaire, and he owns the Eagles. Under Lurie, who bought the team in 1994 from car dealership magnate Norman Braman, the Eagles have been one of the best and best-run teams in the NFL.
Whatever. It does not matter that the Eagles have won two Super Bowls in eight seasons. It does not matter that the previous owner charged players for their own socks and pads, or that the owner before that tried to sneak the team out of town. Lurie is a Philadelphia sports team owner. You should hate him! Every Philly sports fan thinks they could do a better job owning the teams they hate and care about than the people that currently own them. I myself have so many ideas. The Eagles would win eight Super Bowls in eight seasons under my ownership. I will not give any of them away here to preserve my advantage.
Still, Lurie seems benevolent enough for a 2025 billionaire. The Eagles are good, they do well-organized charity work, players don’t have to buy their own socks, the team occasionally wears Kelly green uniforms again, et cetera. And there’s another reason for fans to like him right now: Thanks to a heroic and annoying bit of oratory, he saved the Tush Push.
On Wednesday, the Green Bay Packers’ proposal to ban Philly’s successful short-yardage play failed. Owners voted 22-10 in favor of a ban on aiding a runner by pushing, but the motion needed 24 votes to pass.
And it seems Lurie was the one to save the play! Our old colleague Kalyn Kahler wrote in March that discussion over the play had been “heated.” Discussion was tabled at league meetings in April, she wrote, with half the teams in favor of eliminating the play. The Packers then reworded their proposal in an attempt to remove some ambiguity, and a ban seemed likely before this week’s vote.
But Lurie had plans. He brought along former Eagles center Jason Kelce to clarify for owners that he did not stop playing because of the Tush Push. (“I’ll come out of retirement today if you tell me all I gotta do is run 80 Tush Pushes to play in the NFL,” Kelce said on his podcast.) Assistant GM Jon Ferrari also explained why the play should stay. Then Lurie gave what was reported to be an hourlong speech in favor of the play. ESPN’s Seth Wickersham wrote that 49ers owner Jed York asked Lurie “how much more shit” he had to say. Wickersham also reported this:
Lurie made an analogy, telling the room that regardless of whether the play was banned, it was a “win-win” for the Eagles, adding that it was “like a wet dream for a teenage boy” to create a play that was so successful that the only way for it to be stopped was for it to be banned."
After Lurie finished speaking, executive vice president of football operations Troy Vincent chastised the Eagles owner for the “wet dream” comment, specifically for saying it in front of women in the meeting.
To me, the word to chastise Lurie for in that bit is “teenage.” Jeffrey Lurie, you are 73 years old. Please do not use a simile about teenage sexuality. You have a Ph.D. in social policy from Brandeis. Your thesis was on the history of women in Hollywood cinema. Surely you could’ve compared a Tush Push ban to the Hays Code censoring Mae West’s popular films.
The Athletic’s Dianna Russini reported that NFL commissioner Roger Goodell “finds the play ugly.” The commissioner, then, was somehow outfoxed by a man who managed to talk for an hour about an NFL play where the quarterback takes the snap and pushes right up the field, and to do so in a way that involved implied ejaculation.
Since he’s been so successful, I have an idea for what Lurie can do next season at the owner’s meetings. The Packers wanted a successful play out of the game? Fine. The NFL ought to ban the Lombardi Sweep.
