Campaign? Why and where do you see a so called campaign?
Do I have to define to you what a campaign means? Come on.
I think people mostly look at their screens, see some games from the teams, know the players and their shape very well and then give their educated guess. I think there can't be much doubt that Manchester City has always been at least among the top favorites, but it is also a fact that the teams are very close to each other anyway. We don't watch soccer because one team wins 10-0 all the time.
Let's say what is happening in the Champion's league right now being similar to England being top favorites ahead of record Champions Brazil because of the media hype they have... Oh, well, at least England had some history from 1966. Let's use USA as an example. Do you see it making any sense?
Meanwhile, every success that Brazil tries to achieve. They just call it luck
Real has had a phase where they really didn't play very well. Without the lucky punches it would have been over, but they got their lucky punch.
"Lucky Punch"
Some of you people really amaze me. I wonder if some of you folks even ever played football at a competitive level. This is no dice game, more or so if the winner emerges after a full tournament(s)
20 years ago, Haaland and Mbappe would already be playing for Real Madrid together. Money changed a lot of things and it might keep changing things even further.
You certainly don't know Real Madrid's transfer policy was 20 years ago. Stop making guess work.
Better season this year for Haaland or Benzema? I think Haaland, but might Benzema be the decisive striker in a game between them? Of course that could be the case, but if I had to choose (the billion dollars you know), I would go with Haaland.
Let's leave that for the end of season to decide. There are a lot of factors to consider, including injury.
Lol... Why would I not know a bit about Real Madrid's transfer policy when Figo, Zidane and Ronaldo played for Real in 2002? They have been buying the superstars whilst educating their own top players. Would the three have played for Real at the same time if sheikh or other business money (for example as in the case of Chelsea) had already entered the sport? THAT is guess work I would say and if I had to place a bet I would bet against it. Manchester City was bought in 2008, PSG in 2011. Mbappe wouldn't be playing for City or PSG now, not ever. Neither would Neymar or Messi. Haaland wouldn't be playing for Manchester City.
I am convinced that back in 2002, that is a good 20 years ago, there would have been a significant chance for Haaland or Mbappe or both to already be playing for Madrid. Not as a replacement for the aforementioned three, that wasn't my point. My point was that money simply changed a lot. We might see that again with Newcastle. How would your history argument apply when such a club wins the Champions League or the PL? It doesn't apply anymore, it's nonsense.
Real Madrid indeed has a history that they are still benefiting from and the reason they still benefit is that they are still sticking to their guns more or less and they manage to support their history and future with constant success. That is why the club is highly attractive besides the money they have. Money, which of course is much less than City (without history) has and much less than Newcastle (with a history) has.