Ex-England footballer Jill Scott has sparked a debate after her 'industrial language' prompted Soccer Aid's commentators to apologise on-air.

This has triggered a split view among Echo readers on whether it’s necessary for swearing to be apologised for on live TV.

Kellie Maloney expressed her opinion on social media, citing the prevalence of swearing in sports environments.

"Why do TV companies get upset if people swear in real-life situations?

"It’s a natural thing for a lot of people," she said.

"Paul Williams vocalised his resentment over the public’s sensitivity to swearing, saying: "I loathe all this apologising for bad language on TV, it’s pathetic."

He added that swearing, if not directed at officials, can be a positive expression of passion and commitment towards their performance.

Sara Lou also defended Scott, remarking: "I think it’s perfectly normal.

"She’s human!

"She was disappointed in herself."

Her sentiment was echoed by Michelle Blake who said: "She's human and passionate about the game and her performance."

Read more

With elections around the corner, get the news as it unfolds. Subscribe for unlimited access and an Ad-free app experience. Only £4 for the first four months!

However, others believe these incident reflects a larger societal issue.

Graham Ryan commented: "That's the trouble these days every other word is effing no wonder kids pick it.

"We were brought up with respect which is totally lacking these days."

Despite the contrast in views, the majority of fans felt Scott didn't owe anyone an apology.

Shirley Nickels said Scott was simply displaying her frustration, and that an apology is unnecessary.

Similarly, Hazel Rushton stated that swearing is part of the game, and people should get used to it.

Laura Jones summed up the general public sentiment saying: "Public probably thought it was hilarious.

"Shows compassion."

It seems that many believe the incident was simply an expression of Scott's passion and aren't offended by such language.

What do you think?