You can, and it's often said, but I don't think it's as convincing in those cases as it is about English clubs in the 90s and AT CERTAIN TIMES this century. We always hear that the PL is the most competitive league in the world and that any of six clubs can win it. Leicester are wheeled out as the ultimate proof of how competitive it actually is but no one tries to explain why the PL is now 25 years old and only six clubs have ever won it! Most seasons there have been two genuine contenders at most and in few years has there been a genuine "title race"! This is true at different times in different countries: there has been little genuine competition in Italy in the last eight years and France, the most open of all European leagues is totally dominated by PSG (yet to get beyond the last eight of the CL?). In Spain Madrid and Barcelona have always dominated but Valencia were a real force at the start of the century and Atletico have emerged recently and the success of these clubs and Sevilla in the UEFA cup (eight victories since 2004!) suggest a level superior to that of the PL, apart from the years between 2005-9. This of course can be seen as a result of Spain's massive investment in coaching this century.
This leaves the 90s and the years since 2012 as rather barren from the English point of view. In the 90s United's financial power was crushing apart from a couple of years when Blackburn rivalled them and a year when Arsenal invested in the team. United's fate was that of PSG - able to dominate domestically but lacking the competition to sharpen them up for Europe. With the single exception of 1999 their record in Europe was terribly poor for the richest club in the world. This was Neville's point. Lack of serious competition won't make it impossible for City to win the CL but it won't make it any easier.
