SAN FRANCISCO — A landmark ruling that opened the door for college football and basketball players to be paid went against all previous court rulings, including a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court decision, an attorney for the NCAA told a federal appeals court Tuesday.

Lawyer Seth Waxman told a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that courts never previously held that rules meant to protect the amateur status of student athletes violated antitrust law.

He cited the 1984 Supreme Court ruling that stated athletes must not be paid in order to preserve the character and quality of college athletics.

Plaintiffs’ attorney Michael Hausfeld countered that the Supreme Court comment was made in passing and was not integral to the outcome of that case. The ruling “does not establish an absolute, abstract, blanket, mechanical immunity from antitrust accountability for any NCAA rule of practice,” Hausfeld said.

He also said the NCAA has not consistently defined what it means to be an amateur athlete, calling into question its contention that amateur athletes must not be paid to play their sports.

The NCAA is challenging U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken’s decision last year to allow players in the top division of college football and in Division I men’s basketball to be paid at least $5,000 a year for rights to their names, images and likenesses.