I don't think this is the most important award to players, despite what the FWA itself says:
... an award should be given “to the professional player who by precept and example is considered by a ballot of members to be the footballer of the year.”
That was back in 1947 and since then the Footballer of the Year Award has become the most prestigious award in the British game.
Delaney's tweet was rather interesting. He said he didn't vote for KDB because he was inconsistent, and had missed a lot of games. When City fans pointed out he had missed only three league games, and his statistics were far superior to those of any other player, he deleted his tweet. This is from the CHIEF FOOTBALL WRITER of The Independent, displaying bias against a City player, or the club? Or favour towards another club or player? Certainly a lack of knowledge, which a rudimentary search could have prevented, and absolutely certainly a lack of impartial or independent thought, which he is employed to do.
Fair enough, football writers might easily interpret their own voting criteria as capable of being influenced by non-playing factors, as well as playing factors. But some, such as Delaney, clearly think the award should be judged on footballing ability and contribution. We know this, because he referenced KDB's inconsistency and lack of games.
Other football writers clearly think the 'example' can be set off, as well as on the pitch. Hence the award given to players like Scott Parker, and Henderson. You could even argue that Sterling was chosen due to a combination of playing and other activities - he outed the media as racist last season by pointing out the hypocrisy of his own treatment, compared with that of a white City player, when each had invested in a new house. But Sterling had a fantastic season on the pitch, so I'm not an advocate of that particular argument.
It might help if the FWA made it clear what they wanted for their POTY. Are their members voting for the best player of the season, or the player who has set the best example off the pitch? If the latter, Rashford should have been the clear winner this year. Until they clarify their own voting criteria, their award will never be the 'most prestigious award in the British game'.
It is interesting that the only time the football writers seem to have allowed an off the pitch example to influence their choice was when we won the league in 11-12, and Scott Parker won their award. I'm not sure what Parker did off the pitch to influence the choice though. On the other two occasions City won the league, Suarez and Salah received the writer's award, and you can't argue against them having great seasons.
The other question surrounding Delaney's actions is why he felt it necessary at all to come out and tweet the reasons why he didn't choose KDB. It wasn't necessary for him to justify himself - nobody else did. By giving his reasons for not choosing KDB, he is effectively saying "yes, I know De Bruyne was the most worthy recipient of this award this year, and I would have voted for him, if it wasn't for his inconsistency and lack of games. I voted for Trent Alexander Arnold instead." His tweet is confirmation of his prejudice against City.
So until the FWA clarifies what it means by 'example', and eliminates or reduces the possibility of 'anyone but City' voting, their award will be largely meaningless. Let's hope the players themselves have voted correctly. Their voting is simply for "the player who is adjudged to have been the best of the year in English football."