Some folks love fiction, even in non-fiction writing. Most arguments go like this: (1) fact (2) assumption (3) conclusion. However, some people don't like to accept facts as they are. Rather, they like to look back at the past, imagine a twist in the tale, and then speculate on what would have happened. Thus, this argument goes like this: (1) fiction, (2) assumption, (3) speculation.

Guess which of the two argument formations I favor?

I favor the first. Why? Well, counterfactuals are indeterminate. They are an argument you can't win, and for novices, they are fun because you also can't lose. In the realm of Madrid and Barcelona, many ask: what if Barca had signed Di Stefano? However, Madrid offered Kubala a contract before Barca. What if Bernabeu had agreed to hire Kubala's relative as coach and signed Barca's idol? Or what if Kubala had died in a plane crash (it almost happened when he was touring Italy)?

Also, what if Franco had banned the Catalan XI, and promising forward Mariano Martin had not injured his knee during a Catalan XI friendly? Would he have set some records and won some trophies? What if Cesar Rodriguez had died during his military service in Southern Spain? What if the anarchists had killed Bernabeu during the Spanish Civil War? Would Real Madrid even exist?

The possibilities are infinite. Sadly, what we learn from the counterfactual exercise is finite: next to nada. It's fun, but not necessarily illuminating. Thus, my book will stick to the facts. Yes, debate exists about cause and effect. Some facts are murkier than others. However, don't anticipate a lot of "what ifs."