Why is the std::initializer_list constructor preferred when using a braced initializer list?

Consider the code

#include <iostream>

class Foo
{
    int val_;
public:
    Foo(std::initializer_list<Foo> il)
    {
        std::cout << "initializer_list ctor" << std::endl;
    }
    /* explicit */ Foo(int val): val_(val)
    {
        std::cout << "ctor" << std::endl;
    };
};

int main(int argc, char const *argv[])
{
    // why is the initializer_list ctor invoked?
    Foo foo {10}; 
}

The output is

ctor
initializer_list ctor

As far as I understand, the value 10 is implicitly converted to a Foo (first ctor output), then the initializer constructor kicks in (second initializer_list ctor output). My question is why is this happening? Isn't the standard constructor Foo(int) a better match? I.e., I would have expected the output of this snippet to be just ctor.

PS: If I mark the constructor Foo(int) as explicit, then Foo(int) is the only constructor invoked, as the integer 10 cannot now be implicitly converted to a Foo.

§13.3.1.7 [over.match.list]/p1:

When objects of non-aggregate class type T are list-initialized (8.5.4), overload resolution selects the constructor in two phases:

• Initially, the candidate functions are the initializer-list constructors (8.5.4) of the class T and the argument list consists of the initializer list as a single argument.
• If no viable initializer-list constructor is found, overload resolution is performed again, where the candidate functions are all the constructors of the class T and the argument list consists of the elements of the initializer list.

If the initializer list has no elements and T has a default constructor, the first phase is omitted. In copy-list-initialization, if an explicit constructor is chosen, the initialization is ill-formed.

As long as there is a viable initializer-list constructor, it will trump all non-initializer-list constructors when list-initialization is used and the initializer list has at least one element.