The N.C.A.A. may restrict colleges from compensating athletes beyond the cost of attendance, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled Wednesday in an apparent victory for the college sports establishment as it fights efforts to expand athletes’ rights.

As college football and, to a lesser extent, men’s basketball have generated millions of dollars in revenue through television broadcast deals and merchandise sales, some critics, including former and current athletes, have lobbied for greater financial compensation. The appeals court bluntly said that limiting compensation to the cost of attendance in exchange for use of the players’ names, images and likenesses was sufficient under antitrust law.

The cost of attendance, typically several thousand dollars more than a traditional scholarship, accounts for the financial demands of additional activities like traveling home and back and paying cellphone bills. In January, the five most prominent football conferences voted to allow colleges to provide the higher figure to athletes.

The ruling upheld a federal judge’s finding last year that the N.C.A.A. was, in the panel’s words, “not above the antitrust laws” and that its rules had been too restrictive in maintaining amateurism. But the appeals panel threw out the judge’s proposal that the N.C.A.A. allow colleges to pay athletes up to $5,000 per year in deferred compensation. One of the three judges disagreed with that specific decision, saying in a separate opinion that the $5,000 cap was not a clear error.