While trying to win latest battle, ballplayers and owners risk losing war

HAL STEINBRENNER and Jeff Wilpon DNA-ed their way into jobs. Whatever you think of Jacoby Ellsbury and Yoenis Cespedes, they used talent to gain their contracts. There was no inheritance, nepotism or being born on third base.

Players earn what franchises are willing to pay. Scott Boras, for example, has been accused of many tricks to get clients such as Ellsbury terrific deals. But there has never been a report that he brought a gun to the proceedings. The owners give the contracts under free will.

So when I refer to a contract negatively, it is always over what else it prevents a team from doing within its self-imposed budget. I never criticize the player for getting the money, just as I would not Jennifer Lawrence nor Adam Sandler if they were in a movie that bombs. These are big businesses paying what they can afford because fan appetite fills the coffers.

MLB was nearly an $11 billion business last year, and if all the players were paid $50,000 each, MLB still would have been an $11 billion business — just a greater share would have gone to the owners.

Of course, MLB will not be an $11 billion business this year. Like just about every corporation on the planet, MLB is being walloped by the impact of the coronavirus pandemic. Even if somehow an 82-game regular season is played and a more lucrative, expanded playoffs completed and corporate logos are put on uniforms and fans can return for a portion of the schedule, MLB is going to take in a lot less dough than last year.

MLB’s view is it never would have given out the current player contracts if owners knew this was their revenue and, thus, players should accept less. Players argue that when owner revenue goes up in a particular season, players don’t suddenly receive larger checks, so why should they share the burden when the revenue goes down? Both claim the March 26 agreement validates their position. Players point to a portion of the document that says they will be paid a prorated portion of their 2020 salary based on how much of the season is played. The owners can cite a portion that reads, “the Office of the Commissioner and Players Association will discuss in good faith the economic feasibility of playing games in the absence of spectators.”

In general, when it comes to player pay, I see the March 26 agreement as a Rorschach test — you can see what you want to see in the ink. If forced to pick, I would say the agreement calls for another negotiation to be had if games are to be played without fans, which will be the case at least to begin if there is a season. That was my lean even before The Post on Tuesday revealed a smoking gun email that seemed to corroborate that the Players Association understood that condition as well.

Still, that just means there needs to be a negotiation. It does not mean that the players have to accept what was floated by ownership but never formally offered to players — a 50-50 revenue split for 2020. Heck, if the players wanted more than the pro-rata salary for 2020, go for it. They are going to be the ones taking the risks. I suspect Steinbrenner, Wilpon and Chris Ilitch will not be in clubhouses. Nei

ther will Bruce Sherman, John Sherman or Joel Sherman — at least in 2020, I assume no clubhouse access for reporters.

Even in a pandemic, I will never criticize what players negotiate to receive. But I do think rather than stating the issue already is resolved, the players should negotiate — and come with ideas.

The union, if it allows itself, could actually be in a position of leverage. It is clear how desperate MLB is to want to play some form of a season and, especially, postseason. Perhaps so desperate that all the union has to do is keep saying “no” to everything and eventually MLB will cave and give the prorata salaries to save the season.

But that is risky. There are owners who would rather not play than add to their 2020 losses. If MLB doesn’t blink, then the staredown becomes mutual suicide. Should the sport somehow receive the governmental and medical blessings to play then doesn’t due to a financial stalemate, then the reputations of leadership on both sides will be destroyed forever, and the damage to the game will register between immense and irreparable, a result ruinous to both sides.

Thus, the players also have to be in the solution business. Perhaps, as I have written previously, take the prorated contracts over several years so they are made whole and the owners are helped with present cash flow. And definitely extract some guarantees for the future, maybe around the manipulation of service time or better compensation for free agents beyond the star level. After all, this is not a oneyear problem.

The losses incurred by owners now and the debt taken on will be felt in player salaries in the near future regardless of how this year is settled (or not settled). Thus, the Players Association should be using this moment to not myopically look at just getting every penny in 2020. This is a chance to see a bigger picture, to maybe trade some now for later and — vitally — help save the status of the sport.

Whatever the players fight for and receive, no qualms, no criticism. Now, just get in a room and negotiate.