Not to beat a dead horse, but since you bring it up, I thought it would be helpful to spell out what the two interpretations of the maneuver seem to be:
A) The "generous" interpretation: After using this maneuver, the character rolls his Superiority Die and adds the result to his AC for the rest of his turn. This means that the character can use the maneuver, move up to an enemy, attack that enemy, and then move across the battlefield to do his extra attacks on other enemies or simply move to a safe spot, getting bonus AC against any opportunity attacks along the way.
While powerful, this is the exact same thing that a Rogue can do every turn just by using a Bonus Action to Disengage, which allows the Rogue to avoid any opportunity attacks, not just get a bonus against them. This also creates an opportunity cost for the Fighter because he has to use a limited resource to do it, and by taking the Evasive Footwork maneuver as one of his known maneuvers, he is not taking a different maneuver that is helpful in other situations. There is also a risk of rolling very low to your bonus AC, and an enemy can still hit (and even crit) the Fighter if it rolls high enough. This interpretation lets the Fighter mimic a Rogue ability and be not quite as effective with it.
B) The "conservative" interpretation: the Fighter only gets the bonus to his AC until something interrupts his movement (taking an Action, having speed reduced to 0 by an opportunity attack, falling down a hidden pit, etc.). This way, a Fighter can still rush through the battlefield to hit someone flanked by bodyguards, but he can't attack anyone else along the way.
This interpretation makes the maneuver less powerful than above, but still situationally very useful. Again, it's functionally the same as a Rogue who uses his Bonus Action to Disengage and move across the battlefield to attack a vulnerable enemy mage. While it's not as reliable as the Rogue's ability, the Fighter can make more use of it because he is more likely to be able to take down an isolated single target in one hit than the Rogue, who needs Advantage or an adjacent ally. Besides, why would the Fighter need to attack multiple enemies on the way to his target point? If they're weak enough to kill in one hit, he could just move past them after killing them anyway, and if they aren't weak enough to kill in one hit, then there is no reason he would waste attacks on him when he could use all of his attacks on the high value target in the distance.
Either way you look at it, the maneuver seems appropriately powerful, especially in the right circumstances, but isn't anything that another class can't already do, and it has an appropriate opportunity cost.
