I'm not sure about all of the talk of UEFA co-efficients and the performance generally of English clubs in Europe, I'm not sure what exactly it proves and could be a big Red Herring.
The reason I say that....take Spain. Generally Barcelona and Real Madrid end up getting all of the best players if they want them badly enough. Same with Bayern in Germany. Same with PSG in France. Same with Juventus in Italy. So of course, these teams are bound to be strong, regardless of how good or bad their respective domestic leagues are in any given season.
Now look at the Premier League. All of our clubs are filthy rich and it costs mega-money to prise a player away from a rival. This means that the talent gets spread more thinly. Imagine you made two squads from the players available to Man Utd, Man City, Chelsea, Liverpool and Spurs. Those two squads would be outrageously good.
That's before you even consider teams who largely outperform the 'sum of their parts' like Leicester (and West Ham this season) and add their players into the mix.
In the PL, you have top quality players like Neto, Coady and Jiminez at Wolves, Vardy, Schmeichel, Ndidi, Barnes and Maddison at Leicester, Rice at West Ham, Grealish and Mings at Aston Villa etc.... If it wasn't for the fact our mid-table clubs are cash-rich compared to their European counterparts these players would have been transferred by now for middling fees. Sure, some of them wouldn't have made the step-up or they would have ended up on the bench for top clubs but my point is still valid.
I think the very fact the PL is so competitive actually makes it MORE unlikely that one of our teams would dominate European competition for so long.
However, overall, you take our bottom ten teams and pitch them against the bottom ten in France, Spain, Germany, Italy...I reckon our PL lads would fill out the top ten spaces!