These two markets both target World Cup glory in 2026: Bosnia-Herzegovina and South Korea each carry distinct historical weight into the tournament. Bosnia-Herzegovina, competing since 1996 as an independent nation, peaked at the 2014 World Cup in Brazil with a group-stage exit. South Korea has sustained tournament presence, reaching the 2022 Round of 16 and making it past the group stage in 2010, 2014, 2018, and 2022. The comparison frames two nations at different trajectories—one rebuilding, one with consistent qualification and competitive performance—both asked to achieve tournament glory. Both markets sit at 0% YES, indicating traders have priced these outcomes at near-zero probability. This symmetry is striking: despite their different qualification histories and recent performances, prediction market participants assign essentially identical conviction to both nations winning. The identical floor suggests markets are hitting practical granularity limits. What this reveals is not that one has zero chance—rather, that traders assign such minimal probability to either outcome that the market's pricing resolution cannot meaningfully distinguish between them. For tournament-wide events where traditional powerhouses (France, England, Argentina, Germany) dominate the probability mass, long-tail outcomes like these compress toward the floor. These outcomes do not move in lock-step. Bosnia-Herzegovina and South Korea compete in entirely separate qualifying tournaments and regional pathways—UEFA and AFC respectively—with different opponents, seeding, and schedules. A strong South Korean campaign would not mechanically improve Bosnia's odds, nor vice versa. The correlation is structural, not causal: both are underweighted because neither has recency bias, star-power market narratives, or historical World Cup finals precedent. If either nation unexpectedly dominates their qualifying group or a transformative player emerges, their respective market could decouple from the current floor. Traders monitoring these markets should track (1) qualifying performance and goal differentials for both nations, (2) emergence of standout players or coaching innovations, (3) regional tournament form (Bosnia's UEFA strength vs South Korea's Asian Cup dominance), and (4) the 2026 finals group draw. Upsets become more viable with favorable group matchups against weakened opposition. The 0% prices reflect the long odds inherent in a 32-team tournament where historical dominance, squad depth, and continental strength heavily favor traditional powerhouses—not forecasts of genuine impossibility.