A U.S. appeals court ruled that college athletes who primarily benefit their schools may qualify as employees deserving of pay under federal wage-and-hour laws, challenging the NCAA's long-held notion of amateurism in college sports. The court emphasized the need to differentiate between students who play sports for fun and those whose efforts constitute compensable work. The ruling follows a Supreme Court decision allowing athletes to profit from their name, image, and likeness, leading the NCAA to introduce a revenue-sharing plan for athletes. The athletes behind the suit are seeking hourly wages similar to work-study programs, arguing colleges violate fair labor practices by not paying for their time. The NCAA insists on expanding core benefits for athletes but faces criticism for potentially harming student-athletes' experiences. The debate over whether college athletes are employees entitled to pay continues to generate widespread attention and discussion.