TEMPE – Before Grant House became the face of a five-year legal fight that would reshape college athletics, he was making waves as a decorated swimmer at Arizona State. 

To his former Sun Devils swimming coach, Bob Bowman, House was about much more than what happened in the pool. 

“He was a likable guy. He was pretty outgoing and confident,” said Bowman, who is now director of swimming and diving at Texas. “Those are things I probably remember most about Grant.”

That confidence led House to make a splash that sent ripples far beyond the pool.

In 2020, while training for the Olympic Trials, House became the lead plaintiff in House v. NCAA, a landmark lawsuit challenging the NCAA’s restrictions on college athletes profiting from their name, image and likeness. 

At the time, House was 22. 

He had no way of knowing the lawsuit would last five years, make his name synonymous with one of the biggest legal battles in college sports history or help launch a new era of athlete compensation. 

He only knew the system needed to change. 

The case eventually settled in 2025, helping open the door to revenue sharing and greater financial opportunities for college athletes. 

House’s fight did not end with the settlement, however. As Congress considers the Protect College Sports Act, a new debate is emerging over who should have a voice in shaping the future of college athletics. The bill passed the U.S. Senate in September and is awaiting consideration in the U.S. House of Representatives. 

For House, the impact of the lawsuit went beyond changing NCAA rules. It changed the way he views himself. 

“It’s definitely made me a better leader, and it’s definitely changed me for the better on how to lead others and how to stand resilient in times of adversity,” House said. 

House already had plenty to be proud of without his name ever becoming attached to a lawsuit. 

At ASU, he was a conference champion and earned recognition as a CSCAA First Team All-American and CoSIDA Academic All-American. He also received the Bill Kajikawa Award, recognizing his contributions to Arizona State through academics, athletics, leadership and community service. 

He later represented the United States at the World University Games and became a professional athlete. 

Bowman said House’s decision to challenge the NCAA did not surprise him, but when House first told his former coach he was considering the lawsuit, Bowman advised him to be cautious. 

“He asked me whether he should do it or not, and I said ‘No,’” Bowman said. “Because I don’t think you should be in any lawsuit unless you have to be.”

Bowman wasn’t dismissing the issues House wanted to address. He simply didn’t know what House was getting himself into. 

“At that time, we had no idea that it would change the landscape of college sports the way it has,” Bowman said. 

House went forward anyway. 

“He really believed in it strongly and he’s someone who always kind of stood up for the things he believed in and this was a big opportunity to do that,” Bowman said. 

That belief became even more important as House’s role grew. 

He was no longer speaking only for himself. He was representing athletes across all college sports. 

“As I became the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, I learned how to be a representative to not just swimmers, not just my team, not just my school, my conference but the entire demographic of over 550,000 athletes,” House said. 

With that responsibility came pressure.  

House continued going to class, training and competing while his name remained attached to a lawsuit that was drawing increasing attention across the country. He also became a target for some of the frustration surrounding the changes taking place in college athletics. 

Bowman watched him handle it. 

“I do think there was some negative blowback that I saw him take, and I think he took it and handled it well,” Bowman said. 

Bowman also believes some of that criticism directed toward House missed the bigger picture. 

“A lot of people give Grant a lot of attribution for causing all these things,” Bowman said. “They were happening no matter whether Grant was the face of it or not.” 

For House, learning how to handle that criticism became part of becoming a leader. 

“It’s really changed my way that I look at being a leader and how empowered I feel,” he said. “Because I know now how many lives it’s impacting and will continue to impact for the rest of time.”

The 2025 settlement was a major victory for House and the athletes involved in the case, but he does not believe it was the end of the fight. 

To him, the biggest accomplishment was giving athletes a greater stake in the value they create. 

“The biggest win is that athletes finally have a share and a cut of the pie,” House said. “They finally have ownership and opportunity and autonomy of some piece of the pie of what they can have.”

House believes athletes still need a formal mechanism to negotiate their future. 

“The biggest task is developing and creating a CBA (collective bargaining agreement) and a collective bargaining ability for all of college athletes is still the biggest aspect to go,” said House, who believes the Protect College Sports Act will prevent that ability. 

House continues to advocate for college athletes in his life beyond ASU. He now competes as a professional athlete for Team USA while working in the NIL space and helping athletes pursue opportunities beyond their performance. 

“I’m proud to say that I’ve helped generate over $100,000 for student-athlete contracts as well as $20,000 for the program,” House said. 

His experience has also changed the way he views what a college athletic career can provide. 

For athletes in Olympic sports, there is often no traditional professional league waiting after college. House believes the college experience can give those athletes an opportunity to build careers and identities beyond their sport while they are still competing. 

“You can expand past just the field of performance into what you are as a human, as a person, as a creator, as an artist,” House said. 

With all that he has learned, House is watching another potential turning point for college athletics with great interest. Congress is considering the Protect College Sports Act, legislation that could establish new rules governing the future of college sports

House is not convinced it is the right direction. 

“I think it could be really troubling for college athletics,” he said. “Accepting the whole act in the bill in itself is really a poor decision.” 

His biggest concern is what the legislation could mean for collective bargaining. 

“If the bill goes forward and in its entirety, it will oppose that ability and oppose the ability for athletes to collectively bargain for what they want,” House said. 

For House, that is more than a policy disagreement. It’s a continuation of the same fight he entered as a college athlete. 

“I think that’s in itself a flaw that athletes’ voices aren’t being heard, and they’re not being considered in a matter that will ultimately impact their existence,” he said. 

If he could shape the legislation himself, House said collective bargaining would be at its core. 

“If I were to be put forward as a plaintiff in this bill, the leading initiative would be to make sure that collective bargaining is written in there and officiated and made official for the future of college sports,” House said. 

Bowman sees the future differently. He believes the changes brought by the House settlement have created a need for more structure and regulation. 

“I support the Protect College Sports Act,” Bowman said. “I don’t think it’s perfect by any means, but I think it would be a start.”

Bowman believes athletes deserve compensation, but he also believes the current system needs clearer rules surrounding money, transfers and how those resources are distributed. 

“I think that they have to have more regulation on the money and how it’s distributed and who gets it,” Bowman said.

Despite their differences, Bowman and House agree on one fundamental point: athletes need a voice in determining where college sports go next. 

“Their voice is important,” Bowman said. “They’re a big part of the equation. They’re the main part of the equation.”

For House, the five-year fight came with criticism, pressure and lessons he wishes he had understood sooner. He said he wishes he had the knowledge and experience he has now when he was 22 and first became involved in the case. But he does not regret making the decision. 

“I think going back, I’d 100% make the same decision,” House said. 

What began as a lawsuit has since become part of House’s identity. 

It changed his career. It changed his understanding of leadership. And it placed him in the middle of a transformation in college athletics that is still unfolding. 

But House does not look at his role simply as something he accomplished. He looks at it as something he hopes will continue after he is gone. 

“The next generations have more opportunity and more autonomy and more availability to change the course of their lives, their families’ lives and the trajectory of their life more than ever before,” he said. 

Five years after putting his name on a lawsuit, House is still fighting for what comes next. The difference is that he is no longer just the college swimmer who decided to challenge the NCAA. He is now one of the people helping shape what college athletics become.

This article first appeared on Cronkite News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.