CLUB SNAPSHOT: At a Glance
| Category | Details |
|---|---|
| Club | 1. FC Union Berlin |
| League | Bundesliga |
| Manager | Mauro Lustrinelli |
| Stadium | Stadion An der Alten Försterei |
| Nickname | Die Eisernen |
| Founded | 1966 |
| First-Choice Striker | Emmanuel Latte Lath |
| Supporting Forwards | Tim Skarke, Livan Burcu, Andrej Ilić |
| Key Departure | Benedict Hollerbach (sold to Mainz, €10m) |
| Defining Trait | A forward line stripped of its top scorer and rebuilt with cast-offs, relying on a striker who has started only four league games |
The Defining Moment
Union Berlin’s forward line entered the 2026/27 season in a state of involuntary reconstruction. Benedict Hollerbach, the club’s top scorer in the previous campaign with nine Bundesliga goals, was sold to Mainz for a reported €10 million in the summer . The departure was not unexpected—Hollerbach had attracted interest after a season in which his goals were the primary reason Union avoided relegation—but it left a void that the club’s limited resources could not easily fill. The response was a patchwork of modest acquisitions and returning loanees: Emmanuel Latte Lath, a 27-year-old Ivorian signed from Middlesbrough; Tim Skarke, a 30-year-old who had spent previous seasons on the periphery; Livan Burcu, a young forward whose involvement in pre-season suggested a larger role ; and Andrej Ilić, whose loan from Lille was expected to be made permanent after seven goals in sixteen Bundesliga appearances the previous season .
The defining problem emerged almost immediately. By early November, Union had scored seven goals in eight Bundesliga matches, a rate of 0.88 per game . Latte Lath, the closest thing to a first-choice striker, had made five appearances, started four, and scored once . Skarke, the unlikely top scorer, had two goals . The forwards were not merely underperforming; they were being starved of service by a midfield that could not create and a defensive structure that forced them to spend most of their time defending. The 7-0 defeat to Bayern and the 4-0 loss to Leverkusen were extreme examples, but the pattern was consistent: Union’s forwards were isolated, outnumbered, and dependent on set pieces or individual moments for the few chances that came their way.
The defining tension of Union’s forward season is therefore one of survival without goals. Lustrinelli was hired to implement a more progressive style, but the forward line he inherited was assembled for a different purpose—holding the ball up, running channels, and converting the occasional chance in a team that defended deep and counterattacked. The players available are functional rather than prolific, and the system around them has not yet generated the volume of chances required to compensate for their limitations. Whether Lustrinelli can extract enough goals from this group to keep Union in the division, or whether the January window must deliver a striker the club cannot easily afford, is the question that defines Union’s season.
This is the story of Union’s 2026/27 forwards: a striker signed to replace a departed top scorer but yet to establish himself, a journeyman winger who has unexpectedly become the club’s leading league goalscorer, a young forward whose promise has not yet translated into production, and a supporting cast whose collective output reflects a team fighting to stay above water.
Tactical Context
Lustrinelli’s preferred attacking structure is built around pressing and transition, but Union’s statistical profile suggests a team that does neither effectively. They average 42% possession and complete only 74% of their passes, among the worst figures in the division. Their forwards are frequently forced to chase long balls or contest aerial duels rather than receive in dangerous areas. The result is a forward line that spends more time defending from the front than attacking in the final third.
Latte Lath’s profile illustrates the dilemma. The Ivorian is a forward who thrives on movement and space in behind, a player whose best work comes when he can run at defenders rather than hold the ball with his back to goal. In a team that struggles to progress the ball through midfield, those runs are rarely found. His one goal in five appearances is not a reflection of his quality but of the isolation in which he is playing .
Skarke’s emergence as the top scorer is a symptom of the same problem. The 30-year-old is not a natural goalscorer; he is a wide forward whose two goals this season have come from situations that reflect his willingness to run and his positioning rather than any sustained creative supply . In a functioning attacking system, Skarke would be a squad option. At Union, he is the leading scorer.
The Forwards
Emmanuel Latte Lath
Latte Lath is the closest thing Union have to a first-choice striker, a 27-year-old Ivorian who joined from Middlesbrough in the summer to replace Hollerbach. His five appearances and four starts this season have yielded one goal, a return that reflects both his adaptation to a new league and the poverty of service he has received .
His profile is that of the modern mobile forward: quick, direct, and capable of playing on the shoulder of the last defender. At Middlesbrough, he had shown enough to attract interest from Bundesliga clubs, but the step up in quality and the dysfunction of Union’s attacking structure have made his integration difficult. At 27, he is in his prime, but a forward cannot score without chances.
The question for Latte Lath is whether he can establish himself as a reliable Bundesliga goalscorer in a team that does not create enough. If Union’s midfield improves, his movement will become an asset. If it does not, he will remain what he has been so far: a willing runner in a team that cannot find him.
Tim Skarke
Skarke is the unexpected top scorer, a 30-year-old German forward whose two Bundesliga goals this season have made him Union’s leading league scorer . His role has been primarily as a wide forward or supporting striker, and his contributions have been a rare bright spot in an otherwise bleak attacking picture.
His profile is that of the experienced, hard-running forward: capable of playing across the front line, willing to press, and positionally intelligent enough to arrive in scoring positions. He is not a player who will create something from nothing, but in a team that struggles for goals, his willingness to run and his knack for being in the right place have value.
The question for Skarke is whether his scoring rate is sustainable. Two goals in eight appearances is a modest return for a top scorer, and it reflects the low bar that Union’s attacking output has set. If the team improves, his role may diminish. If it does not, he will remain a symbol of the club’s attacking limitations.
Livan Burcu
Burcu is the young forward whose pre-season involvement suggested a breakthrough season, but whose competitive opportunities have been limited. At 21, he represents the club’s investment in youth and potential, but the pressures of a relegation battle are not an ideal environment for development.
His profile is that of the developing forward: technically competent, physically still maturing, and learning the demands of Bundesliga football. Lustrinelli’s willingness to involve him in pre-season reflected a belief in his ability, but the step up to regular first-team football is significant.
The question for Burcu is whether he can contribute meaningfully this season or whether his development will be deferred until the club’s situation is more stable. In a team that needs goals, a young forward without a track record is a gamble.
Andrej Ilić
Ilić is the returning loanee whose permanent signing was expected after seven goals in sixteen Bundesliga appearances for Union the previous season . His involvement this season has been limited, and his role in the squad remains unclear.
His profile is that of the physically robust centre-forward: capable of holding the ball up, bringing others into play, and finishing chances when they arrive. At his best, he offers a focal point that Latte Lath’s more mobile game does not.
The question for Ilić is whether he can recapture the form that made him a useful squad option last season, or whether the collapse of Union’s attacking structure has affected him as much as it has the other forwards.
The Numbers Game
TABLE A: Union Berlin Forward Bundesliga Statistics (2026/27, as of November)
| Player | Apps | Starts | Minutes | Goals | Assists |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Emmanuel Latte Lath | 5 | 4 | 287 | 1 | 0 |
| Tim Skarke | 8 | 1 | 369 | 2 | 0 |
| Janik Haberer | 7 | 4 | 364 | 1 | 0 |
Figures from FBref and FotMob .
TABLE B: Union Berlin Forward Unit – Key Metrics (2026/27)
| Metric | Value | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Squad Goals Scored | 7 | In 8 Bundesliga matches |
| Goals Per Game | 0.88 | Second-worst in division |
| Top Scorer | Tim Skarke (2) | A wide forward, not a striker |
| Hollerbach Sale Fee | €10 million | To Mainz, summer 2026 |
| Hollerbach 2025/26 Goals | 9 | Union’s top scorer last season |
Figures from FBref and FOX Sports .
TABLE C: Forward Career Context & Pedigree
| Player | Nationality | Previous Clubs | Style Profile |
|---|---|---|---|
| Emmanuel Latte Lath | Ivory Coast | Middlesbrough, Atalanta | Mobile, direct, needs service |
| Tim Skarke | Germany | Darmstadt, Union (previous) | Hard-running, versatile, limited |
| Livan Burcu | Germany | Union Academy | Developing, technically competent |
| Andrej Ilić | Serbia | Lille, Valencia (loan) | Physical, hold-up play, finisher |
Tactical Identity & Squad Balance
Union’s forward line reflects a club that has been forced to sell its best attacking talent and replace it with cheaper alternatives. Hollerbach’s departure for €10 million was a financial decision that made sense for a club with Union’s resources, but it left a hole that the summer’s acquisitions have not filled . Latte Lath has potential but has not yet adapted. Skarke has exceeded expectations but is not a long-term solution. Burcu and Ilić are squad options rather than starters.
The vulnerability identified by the early season is not individual quality but collective supply. Union’s forwards are not missing a high volume of chances; they are not getting chances at all. The team averages fewer than one goal per game, and the forwards are dependent on set pieces, individual errors, or moments of inspiration rather than sustained attacking patterns. In a team that cannot create, even a good striker would struggle.
The broader question is whether Lustrinelli’s system can generate enough chances to keep Union in the division. The early evidence is not encouraging. The 3-3 draw with Frankfurt, in which Union scored three goals, was an outlier; the 0-0 draw with Dortmund and the 1-1 draw with Augsburg were more typical of a team that struggles to score . If the forwards cannot find a way to produce goals, the midfield and defence will need to compensate—and neither has shown the capacity to do so.
The Verdict from the Camp
FOX Sports, on Hollerbach’s departure:
“Union Berlin is losing its main attacking threat for next season after selling Benedict Hollerbach to Bundesliga rival Mainz. Hollerbach scored 14 goals in 62 league games for Union, with nine of them coming last season to help the team stay in the Bundesliga for another year.”
FBref, on Latte Lath’s early season:
“Emmanuel Latte Lath: 5 appearances, 4 starts, 287 minutes, 1 goal, 0 assists.”
FotMob, on Union’s top scorers:
“Tim Skarke is the top scorer for Union Berlin in Bundesliga 2026/2027 season with 2 goals.”
Where Next?
Union’s forward priority is clear: they need goals. The current group has produced seven in eight matches, and the leading scorer is a wide forward who was not expected to be a regular starter. Latte Lath’s adaptation is the most immediate hope—if he can find form and if the midfield can supply him, he has the profile to score at a reasonable rate. But the evidence so far suggests that Union’s attacking problems are structural rather than individual, and a change of striker alone will not solve them.
The January window may offer an opportunity to add a proven goalscorer, but Union’s financial situation and the summer’s investment in other areas suggest that significant spending is unlikely. Lustrinelli may have to work with what he has: a group of forwards whose limitations are exposed by a team that cannot create, and a season that will be defined by whether they can score enough to survive.
For now, Union’s forwards are a unit defined by absence and improvisation: a replacement who has not yet replaced anyone, a journeyman who has become the top scorer by default, a young forward waiting for his chance, and a club whose survival may depend on whether the goals can come from somewhere—anywhere—before it is too late.
