In a book I found a sentence like this:
The 2010 FIFA World Cup culminated in an epic final with two teams that have never won the World Cup.
I'm wondering why have never won is used instead of had never won.
I think the present perfect negative used in this sentence is in error; the writer should have used had instead of have. If I remember correctly, world cup finals cannot end in ties, so definitionally once the game was over one of those teams had indeed won a world cup. Technically, I suppose the sentence could have been written just before or during the 2010 final, but then using the past tense of culminate would be problematic, and describing the final as "epic" before it's over wouldn't make a lot of sense.
The sentence could have been worded:
The 2010 FIFA World Cup culminated in an epic final with two teams that have never otherwise won the World Cup.
Which may be true if neither team has won a world cup since 2010.
In many cases, the choice of whether to use the present perfect or past perfect is stylistic and subtle. In most positive cases both statements are true; it is simply a question of what the speaker wants to emphasize. (e.g., "I had eaten" v/s "I have eaten".) In negative statements, as this one, it is indeed possible for the past perfect to be true and the present perfect to be false.