Duncan Ferguson Says Everton Should Have Kept Dominic Calvert-Lewin

Dominic Calvert-Lewin’s latest goal for Leeds United gave Duncan Ferguson’s criticism of Everton’s decision to let him leave a timely backdrop. The former Everton player and manager believes the club should have done everything it could to retain the striker, who joined Leeds on a free transfer in the summer of 2025. Ferguson’s argument is rooted in a familiar football calculation: when a team has a forward who can make chances count, replacing that contribution may be harder than keeping him. But his willingness to meet any wage demand is a personal view, not evidence of what happened in negotiations.

Calvert-Lewin scored his fourth Premier League goal of the season against Manchester United over the weekend. With limited service, he controlled a ball on his chest inside the box and finished from close range. He ended last season with 15 goals in all competitions and has scored five this season. That record gives Leeds a concrete return from a player who arrived without a transfer fee, though a handful of goals can’t, by itself, settle questions about his longer-term value or availability.

Ferguson says Everton should have kept Calvert-Lewin

Speaking on The Overlap Daily last Thursday, Ferguson recalled coaching Calvert-Lewin as a young player and giving him a place in the team. “They (Everton) should’ve never let Dominic go,” he said. The remark carries the weight of a former coach who knows the striker’s qualities, but it also reflects Ferguson’s strong personal attachment to a player he helped develop. That perspective is useful; it isn’t the same as a full account of Everton’s decision.

Ferguson pointed to Calvert-Lewin’s first two goals, which came in the same game against Chelsea, and argued that Everton should have met the striker’s demands to keep him. His point was less about a particular contract structure than about the cost of losing a proven option in the centre-forward role. For clubs, a striker’s contribution includes more than goals: movement, presence in the penalty area and the ability to occupy defenders can shape how the rest of the attack functions.

“He’s a great player. They should never have let him go, ever. I don’t know what’s happened behind the scenes; if he wanted £200,000 a week, give him £200,000 a week. If he wanted £100,000 a week, give it to him,” Ferguson said. The figures are hypothetical examples in his argument, not confirmed details of Calvert-Lewin’s demands. That distinction matters: without the negotiations’ full context, it’s difficult to judge whether Everton’s choice came down to wages, sporting plans or other considerations.

He also cited the qualities that make Calvert-Lewin a threat in the box: “He’s six foot three, he’s quick, he’s got a lovely finish on him. He gets in there, he gets in that six-yard box, and he’s got a tremendous leap; he’s unbelievable in the air.” Those traits offer a straightforward explanation for why Ferguson sees him as difficult to replace. A forward who can attack crosses and finish close-range chances gives a team more ways to score, especially when open play produces little space.

Calvert-Lewin’s goal against Manchester United came just days after Ferguson’s comments, offering a fresh example of the finishing and aerial presence he described. The timing makes the criticism feel especially pointed: Leeds got a goal from the kind of penalty-area action Ferguson says Everton gave up. One example doesn’t prove the decision was wrong, but it makes the debate easier to understand.

Everton’s striker options came under pressure

Everton, meanwhile, had limited options up front in their 2-0 loss to Chelsea. Thierno Barry was the club’s only senior striker after Beto left in the summer and no replacement arrived. Barry struggled to influence the game as Everton chased an equaliser, leaving David Moyes without an obvious change at centre-forward. That lack of cover narrowed the manager’s options at a moment when a different profile or fresh legs might have altered the shape of the attack.

Barry, 23, is still developing. He scored eight Premier League goals last season and has three this campaign. The comparison with Calvert-Lewin is stark: Leeds signed their striker for free, while Everton paid £27 million for Barry. But the contrast needs care. The figures describe two different recruitment decisions and stages of a player’s career; they don’t establish that one signing will deliver more value over time.

Even so, the immediate squad picture is difficult to ignore. Everton had one senior centre-forward available in the Chelsea match, while Leeds could turn to a striker who has already shown he can score from sparse service. For a side chasing a result, depth at the position can matter as much as the quality of the first choice. Here’s the thing: a transfer decision is judged not only by the player who leaves, but by the options left behind.

What the contrast means for both clubs

Leeds’ decision to bring Calvert-Lewin in has already proved significant. His latest goal reinforces the value of a striker who can turn limited service into a scoring chance, while Everton’s defeat showed how exposed a side can look when its forward options run short. This is more significant than it looks because the comparison is about squad construction as much as finishing: one club has a forward producing goals, while the other had no senior centre-forward to introduce from the bench.

If you’re working in this space, the lesson is that recruitment can’t be judged on a transfer fee alone. A free signing can still carry costs and uncertainty, while a fee for a developing player may reflect a longer-term plan. And yet the current evidence is immediate: Calvert-Lewin is scoring, and Everton’s options were thin against Chelsea. A reminder for both sides. Whether that gap persists will depend on what each striker contributes across the season, not on one weekend’s result.

Read more

Anton Stach names hated Leeds nemesis as ‘childhood hero’