Should college athletes be considered employees of the schools for which they play? That’s the question at the center of a case involving athletes at the University of Southern California.

A judge with the National Labor Relations Board begins hearings on Tuesday, and the case could pave the way for a major change in college athletics.

Under federal law, someone is considered an employee, “if they are working under the control of an employer — and usually that’s for some kind of compensation,” said Risa Lieberwitz, a professor of labor and employment law at Cornell.

It’s a broad definition, she said. And college athletes, who are often compensated through scholarships, seem to fit it, argues Ellen Zavian at George Washington University.

“They’re told when to get up, what to do during the day and when to perform,” she said.

But if student athletes succeed in being re-classified as employees, Zavian said that they could negotiate for a cut of the revenues that colleges, conferences and the NCAA now control.

“A percentage of television, a percentage of merchandise, a percentage of all those revenue streams,” she said.

And if that happens, “it would fundamentally change the way in which this enterprise is organized,” noted David Berri at Southern Utah University.

But Berri isn’t holding his breath, adding that he closely watched a similar effort fall short eight years ago.