If you want to understand why the relationship between the San Francisco 49ers and Santa Clara’s political leadership has broken down — and why the lawyers have been summoned — you could do worse than consider the analogy of a failing marriage.

Related Articles 49ers pay Santa Clara $5.5 million in owed rent for Levi’s Stadium

49ers fans without a home: Can they replace that magical game-day experience?

Santa Clara says 49ers owe millions in Levi’s Stadium rent

Coronavirus: 49ers won’t allow fans at Levi’s for season opener Marriage counselors will tell you that the most common reasons people cite for divorce are lack of commitment, infidelity, too much arguing, marrying too young, unrealistic expectations and a lack of equality between the partners.

With the exception of infidelity — the two sides are bound to each other contractually for another 37 years, so changing partners is difficult — almost all of those factors are present in the current fracas between Jed York’s 49ers and a city led by Mayor Lisa Gillmor.

As sports expert Roger Noll told reporter Ramona Giwargis, this is not likely to end well. A recent lawsuit brought by the 49ers against the city is likely to produce revelations that will not flatter either side. And just now, the 49ers have exhausted their prestige on the field.

The marriage began happily, though an extensive prenuptial agreement hinted at the presence of lawyers. When Levi’s Stadium opened in 2014, it was the culmination of a long civic dream to bring the NFL to Santa Clara. In the early going, Lisa Gillmor had strongly backed the idea.

Reading this on your phone? Stay up to date on 49ers-Santa Clara and other news with our free mobile app. Get it from the Apple app store or the Google Play store.

Then came the problems of the soccer fields next to the stadium, which the team wanted for parking on weekends. In 2012, more than two years before the stadium opened, York wrote a letter in which he proposed to “underwrite’’ new fields on the grounds of Santa Clara schools.

It was, alas, an ambiguous document. In marriage terms, it was a hazy promise to help the career of a spouse’s beloved nephew. As a longtime soccer advocate, Gillmor interpreted the document to mean the team would build and maintain several new fields. The 49ers didn’t see it that way.

When the idea collapsed because of unrelated litigation with the schools, Gillmor’s fury colored negotiations from that point forward. When she became mayor after Jamie Matthews suddenly stepped down nearly a year ago, the relationship between the two sides suddenly became chilly.

They quarreled about money. They quarreled about control. And in the failing-marriage scenario, each partner began spreading stories about their spouse. Depending on which side you talked with, they were spendthrift, irresponsible, bullying, immature or dishonest. Friends were asked to choose sides.

Having formed a powerful coalition of soccer parents, anti-stadium people and folks who simply distrust government — yes, they exist in Santa Clara — Gillmor was not really in a political position to take the heat off the 49ers. They were the best adversary around.

In turn, the emergence of the mysterious “BLUPAC’’ in last year’s election, which sponsored attack ads against Gillmor allies in City Council races, encouraged more hard feelings: Gillmor charged that the organization funneled money from the 49ers; the team dismissed the allegations as unsubstantiated but did not quite deny them outright.

By this time, each spouse was doing the equivalent of consulting divorce lawyers or hiring private detectives. Gillmor’s detective agency was Harvey Rose Associates, which began a $200,000 audit of stadium finances. Jed York had his own well-paid attorneys.

Near the end of November, the Santa Clara Stadium Authority — essentially the City Council — sent a blistering letter to the team outlining potential “breaches’’ of the agreement. It was a laundry list of items without much detail.

The 49ers responded with a lawsuit last week, saying that city leaders falsely accused the team of violating its contract. While the team is not asking for financial damages, it wants a judge to order the city to declare there is no breach in the contract. In my analogy, the two sides are now in the antechamber of family court, awaiting the legal squabble.

I see little hope for these marriage partners in the short run, though things could change over the next three decades. They’re already living in different parts of the house and trying to avoid one another. They may tire of hating sooner or later. Let’s hope it’s sooner.