The once-booming trend of celebrities investing in startups seems to be fading. After a surge in 2023, when movie stars and sports personalities eagerly backed young companies, their participation in startup funding has declined significantly.
Analysts broadly attribute this change in trend to reputational risks, shifting to safer investments, higher scrutiny by financial advisers, and high marketing costs.
According to data from Tracxn, 14 celebrities, including Alia Bhatt, Mahendra Singh Dhoni, Dia Mirza, Rana Daggubati, Akshay Kumar, and Katrina Kaif, invested in startups across 19 deals in 2023. This number fell to just eight in 2024, with high-profile names like Sachin Tendulkar, Suniel Shetty, Shikhar Dhawan, Gaurav Kapur, Mayank Agarwal, and Aishwarya Rai Bachchan making investments. So far in 2025, only one celebrity, actor Shilpa Shetty, has made a startup investment, injecting additional capital into Mumbai-based Kisankonnect, a company she first backed in 2023.
This decline in celebrity participation contrasts sharply with the overall funding climate. According to Venture Intelligence, private equity–venture capital (PE-VC) firms invested over $7.9 billion across 270 deals in Indian companies in the first quarter of 2025. Given the resurgence of capital, one would expect celebrities to follow suit. Yet, their return to the startup space remains subdued.
One major reason is the growing awareness of reputational risks. High-profile governance failures and financial mismanagement at startups like Byju’s and GoMechanic have left public-facing investors wary. “The hesitation could be tied to lingering caution after these controversies, which served as warning signs,” said Somdutta Singh, founder and CEO of Assiduus Global.
Instead of traditional startup investments, more celebrities are gravitating toward lower-risk alternatives like brand licensing deals or launching their own direct-to-consumer (D2C) ventures. These options provide greater control with fewer dependencies on founders or external boards.
Additionally, passive capital is no longer enough. Founders now expect investors to bring strategic value beyond just money. This shift is making celebrities rethink their involvement. “The startup investment class requires knowledge on how to invest in an asset class. It’s not just about putting in money,” said Arjun Vaidya, D2C expert and ventures lead at Verlinvest.
The strong performance of the stock market is another possible reason. Some experts suggest that celebrities, noticing the illiquidity of startup investments, are moving capital into more liquid stock market assets instead.
According to sources, financial advisors and family offices managing celebrity wealth are now exercising greater caution. “If a startup falters—like in the case of Byju’s, even high-profile endorsements cannot shield it from scrutiny. Moreover, association with a company facing regulatory or ethical issues can damage the celebrity’s reputation too,” said Divya Momaya, founder and director of MentorMyBoard.
Celebrities typically invest in startups through three models: a direct cash investment with no brand endorsement, receiving equity in exchange for brand endorsements plus a partial cash payment, or a full equity model where they become co-founders and brand ambassadors. However, many startups are now reconsidering celebrity partnerships due to potential downsides.
There’s no doubt that celebrity backing can enhance brand recall and credibility. Successful ventures like K by Katrina (Katrina Kaif), Wrogn (Virat Kohli), HRX (Hrithik Roshan), Palmonas (Shraddha Kapoor), Hyphen (Kriti Sanon), and SuperU (Ranveer Singh) have demonstrated this impact.
However, celebrity partnerships also come with challenges. Reputation risk is a significant factor. Any public controversy, political stance, or legal trouble involving a celebrity can spill over to the startup’s brand image, potentially affecting sales. Additionally, celebrities often invest for personal brand growth, which may not always align with a startup’s long-term vision.
“If the celebrity’s public image doesn’t naturally complement the company’s positioning, the association can feel forced and inauthentic,” noted Singh. For example, an athlete endorsing a health-tech product might seem more credible than promoting a fintech app.
Another limitation is that not all celebrity investors add strategic value. Some remain passive, providing little beyond PR appeal. If they lack industry networks or deep involvement, their contribution remains largely superficial.
Startups are now more cautious about celebrity deals. A common realisation is that simply securing a high-profile endorsement isn’t enough, and significant additional capital is required to drive impact. Experts estimate that for every rupee spent on a celebrity endorsement, startups must invest at least five times more to amplify marketing efforts and see tangible results.
Additionally, while some celebrities accept equity in lieu of large upfront payments, startups must still negotiate key deliverables such as social media promotions, ad appearances, and exclusivity clauses. The true cost of celebrity partnerships often extends beyond the initial deal.
Despite the slowdown, experts believe this isn’t a complete retreat but rather a recalibration. “With stronger institutional backing and a healthier funding climate, many celebrities are likely just being more selective. They are looking for aligned opportunities where their capital, brand, and time can compound meaningfully,” Singh added.
