Instagram · May 22, 2026
Sachin Tendulkar's Sponsorship Decisions and Celebrity Endorsements Verified
The video claims that unlike many celebrities who promote political parties for money, Sachin Tendulkar is a real hero who has never promoted any surrogate advertisements. It highlights his decision to refuse a 20 crore offer from UB Group during the 1996 Cricket World Cup and his refusal to participate in tobacco ads during IPL, despite other players accepting such offers.
What's right
What's wrong
Breakdown
The claim that 36 celebrities, including Sonu Sood, agreed to promote political parties for money is supported by Reference 1, which states, "Including Sonu Sood, they agreed to promote political parties by accepting money." The claim that Sachin Tendulkar played the 1996 Cricket World Cup without sponsorship is supported by References 2 and 3. Reference 2 states, "The ‘Master Blaster’ was all of 23 when, unlike many of his teammates, he decided not to paste a sticker of a tobacco company on his willow during the 1996 World Cup.
For the whole tournament he went without a sticker while many of his teammates flashed various tobacco brands on their batting gear." Reference 3 further elaborates that Tendulkar "went on to play the entire tournament without a bat sponsor." The claim that Sachin Tendulkar refused to participate in tobacco ads during IPL, while other players accepted such offers, is supported by Reference 2, which mentions, "Similarly, he even didn’t feature in IPL advertisements of brands that had anything to do with addictive products." However, the claim that Sachin Tendulkar refused a 20 crore offer from UB Group during the 1996 Cricket World Cup is not fully supported. Reference 2 states that in 2010, he was offered Rs 20 crore by UB Group for their alcohol products, which he declined.
It does not specify this offer was made during the 1996 World Cup. The video transcript mentions a "20 crore" offer from UB Group, but the supporting web context places this offer in 2010, not 1996.
Therefore, this specific part of the claim is inaccurate based on the provided sources. [1][2][3]