Learn Hardcore Spanish (Latin America): Creo que hay posibilidad de un empate en el partido de baloncesto esta noche. - I think there is a possibility of a tie in the basketball game tonight.

In Spanish, hay (from haber) means “there is / there are”, and it’s used to talk about the existence of something.
So creo que hay posibilidad… literally means “I think there is a possibility…”.

Es (from ser) means “is” in the sense of identity or description: “it is big / it is important”, etc.

To use es, you would change the structure, for example:

Creo que es posible que haya un empate. – I think it’s possible that there will be a tie.

In the original sentence, we’re not describing what something is, but stating that a possibility exists, so hay is the natural choice.

Shouldn’t creo que be followed by the subjunctive? Why is it hay and not haya?

With verbs of belief like creer que, Spanish usually uses the indicative when the speaker affirms something, and the subjunctive when the speaker denies or doubts it.

Creo que hay posibilidad… – I think there is a possibility… (affirming a belief → indicative hay)
No creo que haya posibilidad… – I don’t think there is a possibility… (denying it → subjunctive haya)

So creo que hay is correct because the speaker is stating what they believe to be true, not denying or questioning it.

Why is it posibilidad de un empate and not posibilidad que un empate?

After posibilidad, Spanish almost always uses de:

posibilidad de algo – possibility of something
posibilidad de un empate – possibility of a tie

You cannot say posibilidad que un empate. The options are:

posibilidad de + noun
- posibilidad de un empate – possibility of a tie
posibilidad de que + subjunctive clause
- posibilidad de que haya un empate – possibility that there will be a tie

So de is required; it connects posibilidad with what the possibility refers to.

What’s the difference between posibilidad and probabilidad here?

Both can be translated as “chance”, but there is a nuance:

posibilidad = possibility: it can happen; it’s not impossible.
probabilidad = probability/likelihood: it’s quite likely or has a measurable chance.

So:

Hay posibilidad de un empate. – There is a possibility of a tie (it could happen, but we’re not saying how likely).
Hay probabilidad de un empate. – There’s a (good) chance of a tie (suggests it’s reasonably likely).

In everyday speech, posibilidad is slightly more neutral and common when you just mean “it might happen.”

Why is there no article in hay posibilidad, but there is one in de un empate? Could I say hay una posibilidad de empate?

Yes, you can vary the articles, and each choice slightly changes the nuance:

Hay posibilidad de un empate.
- No article before posibilidad makes it more general: “there is (some) possibility of a tie.”
- un empate = a tie, singular, but not a specific, known event.
Hay una posibilidad de empate.
- una posibilidad sounds more like “one specific possibility” or “a single chance.”
- de empate (no article) treats “tie” more like an abstract outcome.
Hay la posibilidad de un empate.
- la posibilidad = “the (particular) possibility”, something already mentioned or known in context.
- This sounds more specific and less neutral.

All are grammatically possible; the original hay posibilidad de un empate is a natural, neutral way to say “there is (some) chance of a tie.”

Could I say posibilidad de que haya un empate instead of posibilidad de un empate?

Yes, and both are correct, with a small stylistic difference:

Hay posibilidad de un empate.
- de + noun
- More compact, a bit more matter‑of‑fact.
Hay posibilidad de que haya un empate.
- de que + subjunctive clause
- Slightly more formal and explicit; you’re stating a whole event: “that there might be a tie.”

In everyday speech, de un empate is shorter and very natural. De que haya un empate sounds a bit more elaborate or careful, but it’s also fine.

Why is partido used for “game”? Could I say juego de baloncesto instead?

In sports, partido is the standard word for an organized match/game with teams and a formal competition:

partido de baloncesto – basketball game/match
partido de fútbol – soccer match

juego is more general: “game,” “play,” or “playing.” In some countries (for example, parts of Mexico or Central America) people also say juego de básquet, but partido is universally understood and is the safest, most standard choice for sports matches.

So partido de baloncesto is perfectly natural and slightly more standard than juego de baloncesto.

Is baloncesto the usual word in Latin America, or would people say básquetbol / básquet instead?

Baloncesto is understood everywhere, but in much of Latin America it’s not the most common everyday word. More typical options are:

básquetbol (or básquet for short) – widely used in many Latin American countries
basquet (without accent) in some spelling variants

So in many parts of Latin America you’d more naturally hear:

…en el partido de básquetbol esta noche.
…en el partido de básquet esta noche.

Textbooks and neutral written Spanish often use baloncesto, but for a very “Latin American” feel, básquetbol or básquet is more typical.

Why is it esta noche and not este noche?

The choice depends on the gender of the noun:

noche is feminine → la noche
So the correct demonstrative is esta (feminine singular): esta noche – this night / tonight.

If the noun were masculine, you’d use este:

este partido – this match
este día – this day

So esta noche is correct because noche is feminine.

Could I move esta noche to another place in the sentence?

Yes. Time expressions are fairly flexible in Spanish. All of these are grammatically correct:

Creo que hay posibilidad de un empate en el partido de baloncesto esta noche.
Creo que esta noche hay posibilidad de un empate en el partido de baloncesto.
Esta noche creo que hay posibilidad de un empate en el partido de baloncesto.

The differences are mostly about emphasis:

At the end: neutral, very common; time comes as extra information.
Near the beginning: places more emphasis on “tonight” as the topic of conversation.

Why doesn’t esta in esta noche have an accent? I’ve seen ésta before.

Traditionally, demonstrative pronouns (like ésta, ése, aquél) could take an accent mark to distinguish them from demonstrative adjectives (esta, esa, aquel).

However, current standard Spanish (RAE guidelines) says the accent is normally not needed, except in rare cases of ambiguity.

In esta noche, esta is clearly an adjective modifying noche, so it’s written without an accent: esta noche.

Writing ésta noche is now considered outdated or incorrect.

How do you pronounce posibilidad de un empate smoothly? It feels hard to say “de un.”

Pronunciation tips:

posibilidad: po-si-bi-li-DAD (stress on the last syllable).
empate: em-PA-te (stress on the middle syllable).

In natural speech, de un is often pronounced almost like “deun” or even closer to “dun.” Spanish speakers tend to link the vowels:

de un empate → [deu-nem-PA-te]

You don’t need to insert a pause between de and un. Just let the vowels flow together; that’s exactly what native speakers do.

Could I say Creo que es posible que haya un empate instead of this sentence? Is there any difference?

Yes, that’s a very natural alternative:

Creo que hay posibilidad de un empate…
Creo que es posible que haya un empate…

Both mean “I think there is a chance that the game will end in a tie.”

Nuances:

hay posibilidad de un empate
- More noun‑based (“there is a possibility”), a bit more neutral.
es posible que haya un empate
- Uses the impersonal expression es posible que + subjunctive.
- Often sounds slightly more formal or carefully worded, but is also common in everyday speech.

In practice, they’re interchangeable in meaning; choosing one over the other is mostly a matter of style.