The White House hosted the Philadelphia Eagles, the Super Bowl champions, on Monday, April 28. The celebration was, to put it mildly, far from packed. Reports state that fewer than half of the Eagles’ players were present. Read more underneath.

On Monday, April 28, the Philadelphia Eagles made their scheduled visit to the White House following their hard-fought Super Bowl victory—an honor typically reserved for champions across American professional and collegiate sports. But instead of a jubilant and united team basking in the glow of national achievement, the scene on the South Lawn was notably subdued. The glaring absences were impossible to ignore. Less than half of the Eagles’ roster made the trip to Washington, casting a shadow over what was meant to be a celebratory occasion.

For decades, championship-winning teams have received invitations to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to be congratulated by the sitting President. The tradition is often framed as an apolitical recognition of athletic excellence and team unity, regardless of party affiliation. For the Eagles, this was their second visit to the White House following a Super Bowl victory, the first being in 2018—a celebration that itself was mired in political controversy and ultimately canceled.

This time around, with Joe Biden in office and a more sports-friendly atmosphere prevailing, expectations were for a smoother affair. But while the logistics went ahead as planned, the spirit of the event was marred by conspicuous disinterest from the majority of the players.

According to multiple reports, fewer than 25 of the 53 players on the active roster attended the White House event. Several notable starters, including quarterback Jalen Hurts, wide receiver A.J. Brown, and edge rusher Haason Reddick, were absent. Head coach Nick Sirianni and some members of the coaching staff did attend, but the lack of player representation sent a strong message, whether intended or not.

The Eagles organization attempted to maintain a tone of neutrality. In a brief statement, the team said, “Each player was given the choice to attend or not attend Monday’s event. We respect their individual decisions.” No further elaboration was provided, and the franchise appeared keen to avoid stirring any political waters.

The reasons behind the low turnout remain somewhat ambiguous, with no single cause officially cited by either the team or the players. Some speculate that scheduling conflicts, personal obligations, or even off-season recovery regimens could have prevented certain players from making the trip. Others see it differently.

“You don’t just have more than half your team skip a White House visit without a deeper reason,” one NFL insider told The Athletic. “Whether it’s political disagreement, dissatisfaction with the organization, or solidarity on an internal issue, it’s a statement.”

There were rumors of behind-the-scenes tension related to player pay, the team’s handling of injuries during the Super Bowl run, and lingering resentment from a few contract negotiations that reportedly turned sour after the victory. None of these theories have been substantiated, but in the social media era, they’ve taken on lives of their own.

While President Biden has generally maintained good relations with major sports leagues and their players—unlike the volatile confrontations seen during Donald Trump’s presidency—some players may still view attendance at a White House event as implicitly political. In recent years, visiting the White House has evolved from being a nonpartisan act of civic celebration to a personal political statement, depending on the athlete’s worldview.

Though no Eagles player issued a formal boycott or public criticism of the event, several cryptic social media posts drew attention. Cornerback Darius Slay tweeted the phrase, “We know what matters,” on Sunday evening, followed by a football emoji and a lock symbol—perhaps implying team unity over public ceremony.

Similarly, defensive tackle Fletcher Cox posted a photo of himself training, captioned, “Focused on next season. Ring’s nice, but legacy’s forever.” These posts weren’t overtly political, but they were certainly telling.

President Biden, an avid sports fan and Pennsylvania native, did his best to infuse the occasion with energy. He praised the Eagles for their resilience, discipline, and “Philly toughness,” drawing laughter with a few well-placed jabs at the Dallas Cowboys. The president also singled out Jalen Hurts—despite his absence—for his leadership and growth in the face of adversity.

“This is a team that reflects the heart of its city: tough, driven, and unafraid of a challenge,” Biden said during his speech. “You made Philadelphia proud. You made America proud.”

But even as he tried to rally the room, the energy never quite picked up. Photographs from the event showed a sparsely populated South Lawn, with empty space between players and an unusually quiet crowd. Journalists covering the event noted that the celebratory mood felt “forced,” and some even compared it to a high school awards ceremony rather than a championship tribute.

The low turnout did not go unnoticed around the league. Players from other teams offered a mix of reactions, from curiosity to criticism. Kansas City Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce joked on his podcast, “If we ever get another one, we’re showing up 100 deep. It’s a free trip to the White House, man!”

Others were more understanding. “It’s not always black and white,” tweeted Seattle Seahawks safety Julian Love. “Sometimes guys got their own reasons. Doesn’t mean they don’t respect the title or the moment.”

Sports media, however, had a field day. Pundits debated whether this incident reflects a broader shift in the significance of White House visits, especially among younger players who didn’t grow up viewing such events as the pinnacle of athletic recognition.

There’s also a football-based interpretation: the Eagles’ Super Bowl win, while monumental, came after a tumultuous playoff path that wore down the roster. Rumors of internal discord—between players and the front office, and even among position groups—had emerged prior to and after the title game.

According to one Philadelphia sports columnist, “The Eagles might be champions, but they didn’t finish the season feeling like a family. This White House no-show might be more about football than politics.”

The Eagles have undergone significant off-season changes, parting ways with several veteran players, including Jason Kelce, who retired shortly after the Super Bowl. The locker room dynamics have shifted, and the team is now firmly in transition mode despite their championship status. That, too, could have contributed to the lukewarm response to a celebratory event that some players might see as a distraction from recovery or preparation.

The Eagles’ subdued White House celebration could be a microcosm of the evolving relationship between sports, politics, and personal agency. In an era where athletes are encouraged to speak up, represent their communities, and prioritize mental health and personal priorities, the meaning of a ceremonial visit to Washington, D.C., may simply not hold the same weight it once did.

And yet, for fans and traditionalists, the image of a fractured championship team sends a disappointing message. The grandeur of the moment—standing at the White House, being honored by the President—still resonates with millions. For those watching Monday’s coverage, it felt as though something had been lost.

Even longtime Eagles fans expressed mixed emotions. “I love this team, but I miss the unity we had in 2018,” said a fan named Lisa Hernandez, wearing a Super Bowl hat near the White House gates. “Back then, they came as a unit. This just feels… hollow.”

Championships are supposed to unify—not just the players, but the fans, the city, and in cases like these, the country. When that unity falters, even in symbolic gestures like a White House visit, it’s worth examining why. Whether it was political, personal, or procedural, the absence of so many Eagles players on April 28 turned what should’ve been a celebration into a symbol of division—or at least disinterest.

As the NFL world now turns its eyes to the 2025 season, the Eagles will have to answer more than just questions about their roster or their playbook. There will also be questions about cohesion, camaraderie, and what kind of legacy they want to build beyond the final score.