Not sure if you have been in any of the more recent soccer-only stadiums.
I'm posting a picture below of the Orlando City stadium.
Technically, there is no "away" side. Both teams sit on the same side. If you look in the upper left corner and the top middle, you will see that the places where all the players sit are recessed into the normal seating sections. Thus, on both sides of the field, there is actually very little distance between the stands and the lines of the sidelines.
Translated, what that means is this. Even though the soccer FIELD is wider, once you reorient it so that you would have football benches and player/coach areas on BOTH sides, you would essentially have the same orientation. So you'd have the same OVERALL width, but the playing field would be narrower and the sideline areas would be wider. There really wouldn't be much difference, no matter how big Joe Robbie initially made his "multi-use" stadium in the 1980s.
If the Mas brothers build something like this at Freedom Park, with additional seating (you can see that the lower bowl is not very big on the opposite side before you hit the suites), then you wouldn't really have to worry about the size of the field and the closeness of the first row.
The key would be the angle or incline of the overall facility, as to how close ALL of the seats would be. If you go higher/faster, everyone sits closer, but I think there are some height limitations for Freedom Park, being in the MIA flight paths. If you go wider/slower, then everyone sits farther away (on average), but you could put more people in the stadium without having to go as high.
View attachment 184933