Both Cape Verde and Uzbekistan are exploring the 2026 FIFA World Cup prediction markets at an extreme valuation: 0% implied probability of tournament victory. These markets are asking a straightforward question: will either of these nations lift the trophy in North America next year? To contextualize, Cape Verde is a small island nation with a population of roughly 550,000, while Uzbekistan is a Central Asian country of about 34 million. Both have participated in World Cup qualifying but represent long-shot scenarios from a tournament perspective. The fact that both sit at exactly 0% suggests market participants view them as virtually impossible contenders compared to traditional powerhouses like Argentina, France, England, and Brazil. The 0% pricing on both markets reflects several factors: limited historical World Cup pedigree, smaller talent pools, and lower UEFA/AFC coefficients compared to elite nations. For Cape Verde, this is the reality of a smaller federation with limited resources; the nation has appeared at only one World Cup final tournament (2014 in Brazil), finishing bottom of their group. Uzbekistan, while larger, competes in Asia's secondary tier and has never qualified for a World Cup knockout stage or achieved notable continental success. A 0% price doesn't mean there's literally zero probability—it represents the market's extreme confidence in a negative outcome, with traders viewing these scenarios as so unlikely that price discovery stalls at the floor. The tight spread between certainty and marginal probability here indicates overwhelming consensus about their tournament prospects. Interestingly, these two nations' tournament outcomes would likely be independent events. Cape Verde's fortunes depend on Atlantic/African factors (squad player availability from diaspora communities, coach effectiveness, momentum in African Cup of Nations cycles), while Uzbekistan's trajectory hinges on Central Asian competitions and AFC dynamics. If either were to achieve an upset World Cup run, the proximate causes would be entirely different—surprise recruiting breakthroughs, coaching genius, or unprecedented regional federation investment. However, both markets share a common driver: the fact that 31 other nations are perceived as having meaningfully higher probabilities, which mechanically constrains them both to near-zero territory. Readers interested in these markets should monitor several developments: any major coaching appointments or player reclamations from diaspora; pre-tournament friendlies demonstrating unexpected squad cohesion or tactical innovation; and broader World Cup field dynamics. Additionally, watch for whether bids or asks appear in these markets—0% prices often mean no active liquidity, so any movement would signal renewed market engagement. For comparison traders, these markets are most useful as baselines anchoring broader tournament narratives rather than as conviction plays.