WASHINGTON — On Wednesday U.S. Supreme Court justices heard arguments in a case that could fundamentally change the landscape of college sports.

In the case, NCAA vs. Alston, the plaintiffs' lawyers argue that the NCAA's limits on the benefits college athletes can receive violate federal anti-trust law, while lawyers for the NCAA say those restrictions are necessary to preserve the amateur nature of college sports.

The plaintiffs originally pushed for a rollback on any compensation limits for student-athletes, which a lower court ruling did not approve.

Now, the Supreme Court is considering whether the NCAA should be able to limit the education-related benefits that schools can provide to student-athletes.

With a decision expected by the end of June, the ruling could have an effect as soon as this fall.

The NCAA has faced immense public criticism from current and former athletes who point to the multi-billion-dollar college sports industry that brings in massive revenues for universities and networks, and provides for multi-million-dollar coach salaries, all while student athletes remain unpaid with capped benefits.

One former NFL and UT Austin football player says paying college athletes is long overdue, and NCAA vs. Alston is a step in the right direction.

“People always said it was something different about me, you know, but I think a lot of it is dealt with my work ethic," said Tim Crowder.

That work ethic, and his athletic talent, earned Tim Crowder multiple offers to play college football.

When he visited UT Austin, he knew it was the right fit.

“It just felt like home," said Crowder.

But even with a full academic scholarship and a Pell Grant, life was not easy.

“I will never forget, it was the summertime of 2004, and I mean I was literally poor. I mean, I had an apartment, but I basically put all my money from my Pell Grant and all that to that apartment, and I didn’t have any food," said Crowder. "All I had was protein shakes, and I'm a University of Texas athlete. I was a freshman All-American, and I'm about to pass out because I don't have enough food.”

Between school and football, he says his days were packed, and there was no time for a job, let alone an internship that would provide career opportunities outside of football.

“Six in the morning to nine o'clock at night, you do the math. That's a lot of hours. That's definitely more than 12 hours a day. And that's every day, you know. So it's like when do you ever get a break?" said Crowder.

Those memories come flooding back as the Supreme Court considers arguments in a case over whether the NCAA should be able to limit the education-related benefits that schools can offer to student-athletes.

The plaintiffs originally pushed for a rollback on any compensation limits for student athletes, which Crowder says is long overdue.

“When they have a football game at the University of Texas, it benefits everybody," said Crowder. "Hotels, their prices go through the roof; restaurants, people want to go eat places. I mean, memorabilia, they make so much money over just one game, concessions, ticket prices - everybody's making money, but the people that are, but actually the product that's on the field.”

After playing for UT, Crowder played in the NFL for five years, but he says not everyone is that lucky.

“One guy's almost 40 years old. He's already had a knee replacement surgery. He didn't even make it to the NFL, and this is college. He had to pay all that himself. You know, so once his eligibility was up, it’s like he's just a poof of thin air, you get lost," said Crowder.

He says the student-athletes deserve a portion of the massive revenue sports programs bring in for universities, especially as coaches' salaries continue to rise into the millions.

“The thing about it is when the athlete becomes empowered. It takes away their power over them, and that's really what the fight is really about," said Crowder.

Although the Supreme Court is only considering lifting caps on education-related benefits for student-athletes, Crowder says it's past time to remove limits on any sort of compensation.