And so another English football season – with apologies to those supporters fast-twitching between hope and dread before the play-off finals – is pretty much in the book. But really, the conclusion was written weeks ago. The journalist who called it "undoubtedly ... the most unpredictable and craziest of seasons", produced the highest can-can kicks, but he was not the only cheerleader. Sometimes the eulogies were so breathless you wondered whether oxygen masks should be compulsory in every Premier League press box.

But while the short-priced joint-favourites for the Premier League and League Cup, Manchester City, lifted both trophies – and the FA Cup went to the fourth favourites, Arsenal – in Spain the fanciful really did become fact. Who wasn't warmed by Atlético Madrid, the 100-1 underdogs for the title, shattering the duopoly of Real Madrid and Barcelona in a thrilling decider at Camp Nou?

We have to be wary of drawing conclusions from one title race – after all, from 2009 to 2013, the third-placed team in Spain finished an average of 26 points behind whichever one of Real Madrid and Barcelona won La Liga. But Atlético's victory does invite us to examine that widely held assumption – on these shores at least – that English football is more unpredictable than the rest of Europe.

So is it? John Goddard, a professor of financial economics at Bangor Business School, has recently researched the competitive balance among the five major European leagues since the 1970s and his verdict is clear. Since the foundation of the Premier League in 1992, the English top flight has actually become more predictable than the other top leagues.

Goddard's methodology is simple but painstaking. For every season since 1977‑78 he worked out the four highest-ranked teams in the Premier League/old First Division, La Liga, Bundesliga, Serie A and Ligue 1, based on their league positions over the previous five seasons. He then calculated the average win ratio of these four teams in each season, by awarding one point for a win, 0.5 point for a draw and 0 for a loss.

This allowed him to create a dominance index, measuring how superior the top-four teams' results are relative to the rest of the league in each season. From 1982 to 1992, the dominance index for the English first division was 0.60, almost identical to France, Germany, Italy and a little behind Spain. In basic terms, the top four sides in each league drew and lost to weaker sides at a broadly similar rate.

But since 1992 the dominance index for England has gone up to 0.67 – about seven points more per top-four team per season – ahead of Serie A (0.66), La Liga (0.64), the Bundesliga (0.62) and Ligue 1 (0.60). The top teams have become more dominant almost everywhere, but it is in the Premier League where the effect is strongest.

What about the 2013-14 season? Well, the average win ratio of the four highest-rated Premier League teams was 0.71 – the highest since 2008-09. Meanwhile in the Bundesliga and La Liga it was 0.72, with Serie A (0.69) and Ligue 1 (0.66) less pronounced. Everywhere the bigger teams are becoming more dominant, which is partly why Uefa, European football's governing body, has introduced Financial Fair Play. Whether it will work is another matter.

Still, it is worth asking why so many believe this season's Premier League was particularly unpredictable. Especially when the results of the top four – Manchester City, Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal – against bottom-half sides – was played 80, won 63, drawn 10, lost seven; an average of 2.49 points per game – the second highest top-four v bottom-half average tally since three points for a win was introduced in 1981-82.

Partly it is because we do not meticulously track shock results from season to season, so they surprise us more than they should. Another factor was that the mini-competitions in the Premier League – the title race, the Champions League places and the relegation struggle – remained exciting into April. The Premier League lead changed hands 25 times, like a game of hot potato played with bundles of million-pound banknotes. Crystal Palace defied dizzying odds, both against relegation and from 3-0 down against Liverpool, while Sunderland ended José Mourinho's 78-match unbeaten home Premier League record when they also looked doomed.

Then there was Manchester United, this season's footballing Felix Baumgartner, free-falling from first to seventh.

Does the increasing dominance of the big clubs matter? To those who remember Derby and Nottingham Forest winning the league title, and Ipswich and Watford going close, that sounds less of a question and more of an insult. But look at the attendance and TV audience figures. They show no sign of slipping. Most people still lap it up.

Bill Gerrard, a professor of business and sports analytics at Leeds University Business School, points out: "The Premier League is highly competitively imbalanced but still has very high competitive intensity especially this season, with only Southampton and Newcastle having little to play for in the final months. I don't believe that competitive imbalance necessarily undermines leagues. It's the lack of competitive intensity that is the killer for spectator interest."

And that, for all its faults and frustrations, is something the Premier League still has in spades.