Market A asks whether Scotland will win the entire 2026 FIFA World Cup tournament, currently priced at 0% YES. Market B poses an identical question for Congo DR, also at 0% YES. Both markets are binary outcomes (tournament winner or not), and they relate to the same event—the 2026 World Cup—but focus on different nations with vastly different footballing pedigrees, qualification prospects, and infrastructure. Scotland is a UEFA member with historical tournament experience, while Congo DR represents Central African football and faces steeper qualification challenges. Despite both markets showing 0% YES prices, the comparison illuminates how prediction markets weight historical performance, team strength, and tournament infrastructure when forecasting long-shot outcomes. The 0% YES pricing on both markets reflects extreme trader conviction that neither nation will lift the trophy. In traditional prediction markets, 0% rarely means truly zero probability—it typically signals a price floor below which markets refuse to trade, indicating perceived impossibility or near-impossibility. This identical pricing masks important distinctions: Scotland's path to qualification and tournament participation is more plausible than Congo DR's, yet both face overwhelming odds against winning 32+ matches. The zero-pricing suggests traders collectively view each nation as so unlikely to win that no meaningful probability mass exists. For readers comparing these markets, the identical prices obscure different underlyings: Scotland is priced as a long-shot outsider; Congo DR is priced as implausible. Scotland and Congo DR's outcomes are uncorrelated—one nation's tournament success does not influence the other's prospects. They compete in different continental qualifiers (UEFA vs CAF), face entirely separate opponents in group stages (if both qualify), and represent different football ecosystems. However, both markets are inversely correlated with favorite nations' markets: if traditional powers (France, Brazil, Argentina, Germany) gain conviction, long-shot markets like Scotland and Congo DR lose it, as traders reallocate probability mass. The tournament structure itself (32 teams, 8 groups of 4) means at most one winner emerges, so all winner markets sum to ~100% probability. A Scotland victory would not directly prevent Congo DR from competing; rather, the winner markets collectively zero-sum across all nations. Readers monitoring these markets should watch qualifying results and tournament preparation. For Scotland, key signals include UEFA qualifying performance, squad depth, and coaching stability—factors that can shift pricing if a strong campaign unfolds. For Congo DR, qualification remains the critical gating factor; reaching the tournament would itself shift conviction meaningfully. Both markets also respond to meta-factors: rule changes, injury updates to key players, and broader market sentiment toward World Cup favorites. Historical precedent matters: no nation with Scotland or Congo DR's pre-tournament odds has won the World Cup in recent decades, which explains the 0% floor. Traders comparing these markets should monitor each team's qualifying trajectory, not the winner price alone, to anticipate whether these deeply-outsider positions will gain any meaningful probability over the coming months.