Both Cape Verde and New Zealand face the same fundamental question: can a small nation with limited international football prominence win the 2026 FIFA World Cup? These markets sit at price zero—meaning traders collectively assign essentially zero probability to either nation lifting the trophy. The comparison reveals how markets assess national football infrastructure, historical track record, and qualifying path difficulty in tournament prediction. Cape Verde and New Zealand operate in distinct footballing regions with very different competitive landscapes. Cape Verde competes in African qualifying (CAF), where it must navigate past established football nations like Senegal, Mali, and Morocco—teams with significant continental pedigree and regular World Cup appearances. New Zealand, conversely, qualifies through Oceania and the AFC (Asian) playoff route, regions where smaller populations and limited development infrastructure make qualification itself an extraordinary achievement. Cape Verde has never qualified for a World Cup, while New Zealand has appeared in three tournaments (1982, 2010, 2018). The markets implicitly treat this historical context: New Zealand's prior World Cup experience gives it marginally higher infrastructure credibility, yet both remain statistical long-shots by any measure. The 0% YES pricing on both markets signals maximum trader conviction—not that these outcomes are impossible, but that the probability is sufficiently small that Polymarket participants see no meaningful trading signal. At market-level odds of 0%, the implied probability falls below 0.5% at best. This reflects the structural reality: to win the tournament, a nation must first qualify from a competitive region, then survive a knockout stage against world-class opponents (France, Argentina, Germany, Spain, Brazil). For either nation to win, the tournament would need to unfold in a historically unprecedented manner. The pricing also suggests no significant information asymmetry—traders on both sides agree that prediction capital is better deployed elsewhere. Outcomes between these markets could diverge in one key scenario: if one nation qualifies and the other does not, their probabilities would separate meaningfully during the tournament. A New Zealand qualification would likely increase its YES odds toward 0.1–0.5% (reflecting it cleared Oceania), while Cape Verde remaining unqualified would leave its market near 0%. Conversely, a Cape Verde qualification after defeating stronger African opponents might surprise traders slightly more. For either nation to win, monitor these factors: (i) unexpected qualifying performance against regional rivals, (ii) emergence of exceptional individual players at elite clubs, (iii) managerial appointments bringing European or South American tactical expertise, and (iv) tournament draw placement. Qualifying rounds (2025–2026) are the primary signal—a shock qualification would be the only catalyst to materially move these prices.