I can remember as a youngster arguing with Liverpudlian mates that we had a proper football stadium (with our tall double/triple-decker stands on all sides), whereas they just had a very basic football ground. It seems strange to be now arguing the opposite about our new stadium (in relative terms).
Tbh, Spurs stadium is every inch an association football ground. Yes it can accommodate NFL.... but so can most football grounds, because our pitch is bigger than that for American football. Where Spurs works better is that the movable pitch lowers the playing surface, allowing the teams to congregate on side lines without obstructing the front row views on the sides..... so it is a myth to describe it as primarily a NFL stadium. If you check most NFL stadia they are usually quite different in format/proportons to Spurs, which is essentially a better proportioned version of the Emirates, with a Kop moulded into one end. Of course what those stadia have in common with many NFL stadia, is that there is a strong design onus placed on having a full range of corporate/hospitality over several tiers. That was central to the business cases for funding their stadia. The Etihad is also primarily designed for football (the athletics format was completely different and involved no lower tier and a temporary end stand).... yes, it's a bit airy and more wide-open, and the fragmentation of its multi-tier format hasn't given it a great atmosphere, but I think that the new home end could greatly improve that.... if they can actually fill it. Of course the real outlier is the London Stadium.... an Athletics stadium that was never meant to host football..... and fails miserably by every measure.